Third Party & Independents Archives

Are You On Board With This?

Does it make sense to you that the U.S. is the only country with an anchor baby policy? Talk about jumping to the front of the line! How did this country get into the anchor baby business? The better question should be, how do we get out of the anchor baby business.

As I often quote, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” and “The man who wields power and misinterprets it, is the more dangerous the more honest he is”. In retrospect, we go back to the 14th amendment, ratified in 1868. This amendment says that anyone born on U.S. soil is a U.S. citizen. Sounds highly crazy right from the gitgo. Were the citizens aware of this amendment? Did they read about it in the papers, discuss it at the general store? I suppose it’s just another one of those ‘stuff happens’ situations. Like corporations are human and ‘money is free speech’.

Sanity and the law often make strange bedfellows. For example, Obama has been saying, on video, that the healthcare bill is not just a ‘form of taxation’. Now, the Justice Dept, in defending against law suits relating to healthcare reform, is basing their case on constitutional law which says the federal government can tax for revenue.

Most any citizen over six years of age can see the problems that could arise from such a broad statement in the law. And, knowning how the elites, the corpocracy, lobbyist and the like will take a mile if you give an inch we now have corporate ‘baby shops’. These are often ‘consultants’ who, for a small fee, will arrange for future moms to come to the U.S., have their baby, do a little shopping and return to their home country.

A recent Wash Post article relates that baby shops in China will arrange for a 3 month stay in a ‘baby care center for a basic fee of $1475. Provisions include a room with cable TV and wireless Internet, and three meals for $35 dollars a day. The doctors and staff all speak Chinese and there are shopping trips and sightseeing trips. The mothers must pay their air fare and for the 3 month visa.

A consultant spokesperson say that many families feel that ‘with U.S. citizenship their child can have a more fair, competitive environment’. Also, serves as a great way to get around China’s law of having only one child per family. Also, gives the child free public access to U.S. schools through high school and access to a cheaper college education.

The article relates that this year 10M students will vie for 6.6M openings at Chinese universities. It should be noted that many good U.S. students are unable to gain access to the ‘better’ universities and that foreign students make up 50% of the graduate school pool.

IMO, the anchor baby policy degrades the meaning of citizenship, treated more as an instrument of foreign policy. Now, we hear that the gov’t is going to send more ICE agents to the border as well as more national guard troops. Since the ICE will be taking on desk jobs and the national guard are not allowed to confront the illegals, this is correctly viewed as just another ploy by the Corpocracy on their way to an amnesty policy for illegals. Bush carried out the same maneuver for the same purpose.

Posted by Roy Ellis at July 19, 2010 4:38 PM
Comments
Comment #303887

Birthright citizenship is one of things that makes us unique and I’d rather keep it that way. We recognize that all men are created equal and that means that anyone born here has the same rights regardless of whether their parents are immigrants or native-born.

Posted by: Warped Reality at July 19, 2010 5:46 PM
Comment #303889

I agree with Warped Reality. We should get rid of the free government giveaway programs that draw people here to begin with.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 19, 2010 6:26 PM
Comment #303890

Very good post Roy. Sorry WR have to disagree with you on this one. Our Constitution does declare that all men are created equal but how do you get from there to citizenship merely by being born here of foreign parents?

We have fought two world wars to help others obtain equality and freedom but didn’t make them citizens even though we shed blood and treasure for them. Yet, you maintain that if those same folks happened to be here when the baby dropped, the children should be citizens.

I just can’t make the connection between the belief that men are created equal by their Creator with granting citizenship in that fashion.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 19, 2010 6:30 PM
Comment #303891

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.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 19, 2010 6:40 PM
Comment #303892

As a matter of fact Warped, the constitution reads,”…secure the blessings of liberty to [ourselves] and our [posterity]…”

It seems apparent to me that this means those of us who are citizens ourselves and our children.

The children of foreigners born here don’t meet either definition of those intended to be covered. Is citizenship so meaningless to you that you would just give it away?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 19, 2010 6:45 PM
Comment #303893

The problem is if the person is here legally. If they are illegal they are violating the law and the amendment doesn’t apply. Also, it is not violating a visa applicant any rights if the question “Are you pregnant?” is asked. The visa is denied if the answer is “yes”.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 19, 2010 6:46 PM
Comment #303901

Our daughter was born in Brazil. Neither C or J is a Brazilian citizen, yet our daughter is or at least could be. She is also an American citizen at birth by our law, since both her parents are American citizens.

New world countries tend to have citizenship at birth. Old world countries often rely on race and ethnicity. It has to do with our concept of nationhood. I like ours better than theirs.

There can be the abuses of the “baby drop” but it would be wrong, IMO, to deprive a baby born in our country of citizenship. It would also be very hard to adjudicate some of the cases. It could also create a more-or-less permanent group of non-citizens who could live here for generations.

Depriving the children of illegal aliens would be an expedient that we would come to regret.

Posted by: C&J at July 19, 2010 8:57 PM
Comment #303907

I think our anchor baby policy comes from us being the last great colonizer.

Posted by: gergle at July 19, 2010 9:37 PM
Comment #303934

Royal Flush failed to do his research when saying: “We have fought two world wars to help others obtain equality and freedom but didn’t make them citizens”

I suggest you research the large numbers of Nazis and Germans who were, in fact, made U.S. citizens following WWII. Also, research the large number of Vietnamese we made citizens during and following our exit from the Viet Nam War. Rather than make the Japanese U.S. Citizens, after WWII, we reversed it and made Japan a mini-USA which became better at American capitalism for decades than American companies.

Except for native Americans, our entire nation is made up from the idea of making “THEM” citizens.

Sometimes the obvious is so obvious, it gets missed in the zeal to make an argument indefensible through the laziness of failing to check what one does not know. Whence comes the wisdom that intelligence is constantly expanding the realms of what it does not know through perpetual research of what others have learned and noted.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2010 7:57 AM
Comment #303935

Royal Flush made the following statement which I can agree with in principle, but, not in law: “The children of foreigners born here don’t meet either definition of those intended to be covered.”

Except for the obvious law, that in fact, defines them as citizens by birthplace. But, I agree with you in principle, that citizenship cannot be granted to any and all in the world who apply. Not unless we want China’s problems of over-population and not enough resources to keep half, or more, of the population out of poverty.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2010 8:02 AM
Comment #303973

Ah yes the land of opportunist is taken advantage of by others even more opportunistic. I find it hard to believe the 14th amendment was meant to turn the country into a baby shop for non-citizens from other countries. If what Roy has told us is accurate about the baby shops then Congress needs to pass a law to correct the problem. I don’t believe the 14th amendment was intended to protect those in this country illegally from having a baby and the baby becoming a citizen which in turn allows the parents to become citizens. Just doesn’t make sense.


From wikipedia-
“In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the clause’s meaning was tested regarding whether birth in the United States automatically extended national citizenship. The Supreme Court held that Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes did not automatically gain national citizenship.[10]

The clause’s meaning was tested again in the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The Court ruled that children of non-citizen Chinese immigrants possessed national citizenship by being born in United States.[11]

The difference between “legal” and “illegal” immigrants was not clear at the time of the decision of Wong Kim Ark.”

Posted by: j2t2 at July 20, 2010 4:29 PM
Comment #303974

I believe David arrived at the right position. The Corpocracy has been obsessed with growth, production, GDP, GNP, importation of labor, temporary laborers, etc.

If you are wealthy, welcome citizen. Anchor babies, baby shops, 26 different temp worker visa programs, illegals for the drugs (100B/yr - you can’t prove I’m wrong), and jobs Americans won’t do, etc.

All the while, the Corpocracy has pushed for efficiency. Zillions of cans/bottles flying off the production lines each minute, one plane carries 400 people, instant commo for the worlds billions, etc.

One worker might do the job of 50 workers 50 years ago. But, the Corpocracy, forever trying to drive down the cost of labor, keeps pushing for more people.

Importing nurses/doctors because ‘we don’t have the staff or facilities’ to train them. While many US students can’t get accepted to the better learning institutions at the same time 50% of graduate students are foreign nationals.

C & J, care to do a rethink?

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 20, 2010 4:38 PM
Comment #303975

I agree with the fourteenth amendment on these matters:

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.

The point of citizenship by birth is that it gives us, the people, status as Americans, with no more required of us than our simple birth in our homeland. Government cannot deny you your automatic citizenship by law, cannot make it conditional on anything else, on any test or any other matter.

The whole point of the 14th Amendment is simple: there are no second-class citizens in America. A few anchor babies is a small price to pay in proportion to the millions of truly, undisputedly American kids that are born every year with a guarantee of their rights.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2010 4:52 PM
Comment #303976

Stephen D., you are mixing two ENTIRELY separate Constitutional issues into one to defend your position on this matter. It would violate NO Constitutional provision to legislate a denial of birthright to those who seek it illegally.

The gains of criminal activity including property, life, and liberty are routinely taken from individuals, citizens, and non-citizens, by DUE PROCESS. If we can take people’s life, liberty, and property from them for violating our laws through Constitutional due process, there are no Constitutional grounds preventing lawmakers from denying birth right to children of parents who established it illegally. Such birthright is ill-gotten gain, and we have centuries of precedent for using due process to take ill-gotten gains away from law violators.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 20, 2010 5:04 PM
Comment #303981
there are no Constitutional grounds preventing lawmakers from denying birth right to children of parents who established it illegally.

That would be tricky. The Constitution is pretty clear in its language. ALL persons born in the United States… It’s pretty black and white.

If the parents of an unborn baby cross the border illegally, hang out for a little while, have their child, and then get caught by the authorities, and the newborn child is then stripped of its citizenship (taking away the child’s liberty), is that child not being punished for the crimes of their parents? That’s not our justice system… The newborn child has committed no crime. And let’s be very clear… when you strip the newborn child of its citizenship, it is the newborn that is being punished, not the criminal parents.

If, by default, EVERY person born on U.S. soil is automatically a U.S. citizen (about which the Constitution is very clear), to subsequently deny that birthright for the crimes of the parents would be QUITE unconstitutional.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 20, 2010 6:34 PM
Comment #303983

Doug if you were to strip the child of it’s citizenship it would be punishing the child for the crime of the parents. However if citizenship were not automatic for children born to parents in the country illegally it would not be punishing the child for the crimes of the parents. As it is now we are rewarding the child for the crimes of the parents and rewarding the parents as well.

Posted by: j2t2 at July 20, 2010 6:52 PM
Comment #303984

j2t2, I appreciate your point of view, and I do not necessarily disagree, it just seems to me that a constitutional amendment would be required to make it so that the children of illegal immigrants were not automatically citizens. Again, ‘ALL persons born in the United States…’

Pretty black and white.

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 20, 2010 7:03 PM
Comment #303985

David R. Remer-
A person gains citizenship in this country by birth or Naturalization. A person born in this country doesn’t conspire with their parents in order to get that valuable privilege. Why punish them for what their parents did?

Punish the parents. Deport them. If they take the kid with them, the kid can return at some point, their privilege intact. They would be like a person with Dual Citizenship.

Or, if the parents don’t want the child to have to go back with them, they can leave them with family, friends in foster care, or put up that child for adoption. The child doesn’t suffer for the parent’s sins.

I have never seen much good come of the position that the more expedient a law is, the better it’s effects. Tough but fair works, but usually draconian laws run up against the problem that people are uneven when it comes to ruthlessness.

We have to be fair and just, not simply employ extreme expedients because of the gravity of the problem.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 20, 2010 7:10 PM
Comment #303989

A couple of webb postings re Anchor Babies:

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/AnchorBabiesAllanWall.html

Seems like $1475 is relatively inexpensive for having a baby. The article didn’t mention any other cost such as delivery/care. Should one postulate that the taxpayer is picking up the tab as is being done for those who can’t afford to pay for having their baby?

http://www.americanpatrol.com/REFERENCE/anchorbaby_FAIR.html

Excerpt:
• “The Urban Institute estimates that the cost of educating an estimated 800,000 illegal alien school children in the nation’s seven states with the highest concentration of illegals was $3.1 billion in 1993 (extrapolated to $4.6 billion in 1996 by FAIR), but this estimate does not at all take into account the additional costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs.
• It is estimated that the number of children born to illegal aliens each year is 165,000. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 birth per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (five million).
• In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year.

Congressional action warranted: The 14th Amendment stipulates that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions by enactment of legislation and the power to enforce a law is necessarily accompanied by the authority to interpret that law. Therefore, an act of Congress stating its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as not to include the offspring of illegal aliens, would fall within Congress’s prerogative”

http://ezinearticles.com/?And-Thats-My-Take—-(Anchor-Babies)&id=4034495

“The cost to the host country can be immense. In the United States, Anchor Babies cost the various states and the federal government hundreds of millions of dollars each year. To illustrate the drain this places on the local resources, one only has to look at statistics for Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas. Yes, the same place JFK was rushed to on November 22, 1963. Parkland Memorial Hospital has the second busiest maternity ward in the United States, with 11,200 live births to illegal aliens in 2006, costing taxpayers something in the neighborhood of 75 million dollars. That’s one hospital in one city in one year.
Clearly, the constitutional amendment permitting automatic citizenship at birth in the United States is being abused. United Kingdom and Australia abandoned this policy many years ago because of its abuse. Canada still employs the birthright policy, but Canada borders only one country and does not have easy access from other countries. United States does not enjoy this luxury, and hence, has a formidable challenge to overcome.”

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 20, 2010 8:33 PM
Comment #303998

RE and others: Apparently you don’t realize how lucky you are to live in the US. You had nothing to do with who your parents are. The citizen admendment was written by those who realize this and wish to extend this to others, at least those who are born here. Why push the world’s less fortunate back into the poverty and pain of their country. The US was built almost entirely by immigrants and their children. It is our moral duty to accept them into this country.
Royal Flush: By the way the Constitution doesn’t declare all men equal. Check you documents and report back tomorrow with which American document does that.

Posted by: DrTom at July 20, 2010 11:14 PM
Comment #304042


I don’t know, DrTom, I am ambivalent on a number of things in the 14th amendment. What was the intent of the 14th, and is the intent being stretched, broadened, harmonized, etc to meet some political/corpocracy agenda?

Your comment on the Constitution vs the Declaration of Independence is well taken. We, US citizens, are where we are today primarily because we don’t know what is in the Constitution, and other related documents, as you point out.

RF, I thought your quote came from the Decl of Indp but, BUT, I had to google it to verify. Those words are commonly seen quoted as coming from the Constitution.


I am about one-quarter of the way through Andrew Napolitano’s “Lies The Government Told You” and I strongly recommend it to those who, like myself, are not well educated in the Constitution.

But, it’s more than that. Its not just having knowledge of what’s in the Constitution but understanding the true meaning and impetus of each issue covered. For instance, Obama will talk about ‘freedom of worship’ but the Constitution calls out ‘freedom of religion’. One word different but with huge significance.

I firmly believe, as Glenn Beck does, as Gary Wood does in ‘Study Your History.com, that in order to correct our situation, save our Republic, we must educate ourselves as to our roots, the Founder’s, Constitution and our history. My firm belief that there is a reason why civics/government is not taught as a major subject in our schools. Perhaps some schools adequately address the subject, I am not aware. We need a strong civics/gov’t curriculum in our grade schools. Sure, it’s more efficient to raise ‘workers’ by using the time for more ‘important’ things like math, science, English, etc. But, not so important that we lose our liberty, freedom, and Republic over. Nothing is more important than that.
Comes thru loud and clear in this excerpt from the Decl of Indp:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
In that last sentence, please replace the word ‘King of Britain’ with the word ‘Corpocracy’ and read it again. Here is what this respected Superior Court Judge, Napolitano has to say about the status of our current government:
“The U.S. government —- is not a democracy. In fact, some would argue that it is not even a republic, since our leaders do not actually work for us. Some believe that the U.S. government is actually an oligarchy in which just a few thousand people, “mostly in government, finance, and the military-industrial complex, run this country for their own purposes.: These powerful people seek to preserve their power by manipulating the mainstream media, controlling campaign finance money, and thus nominating candidates who will work for them, regardless of their party affiliation.”

Amen, to that! And, we can thank , primarily, the 17th amendment and voter apathy for the Corpocracy.

The Republic Sentry Party seeks to remove the Corpocracy by fighting fire with fire; use democracy vote within the party to force candidates/incumbents to support the party agenda (remove the Corpocracy) and focus them on their constituents rather than big business.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 21, 2010 2:39 PM
Comment #304048

I see where Blago went through court about as fast as you could stretch a gnats ass over a greased telephone pole. The Chicago machine evidently wanted silence fast.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 21, 2010 4:08 PM
Comment #304051


The anchor baby issue is a product of the times in which we live in. There have been few times in our history where the government has taken it upon itself to govern in such a controversial manner. There are major issues where the government is in direct conflict with the will of the majority. A majority in both parties voted for the Iraq War Resolution against the will of the majority of the citizens. The majority of the people are against to big to fail, while our government seems content to not interfere with this practice which has proven to have serious negative impacts on our economy. Then there is outsourcing and illegal immigration which is seriously impacting working class Americans in a negative way. Put into context, these things spell corpocracy and the majority doesn’t approve of it at all.

The people are doing what they can to stop these governmental policies that they disagree with. They tried to stop it by replacing the Republicans with Democrats. Next, they will do the opposite, and again and again.

On the other hand, the owners of this country will continue to use their politicians and their media to keep us divided, on behalf of the corpocracy.


Roy, I think it is very important that the people know more about their Constitution.

I think it is important that they have an understanding of original intent.

I also think it is important they we understand that our Founding Fathers were imperfect humans rather than omnipotent gods. We have to realize that some of these powerful men were looking out for their own best interests.

Just as importantly, we should know why citizens that preceded us found it necessary and were politically willing to amend the Constitution on numerous occasions.

Knowing the original intent of the writers of the Constitution is only part of the history and to pursue that intent to the exclusion of the rest of the history of the Constitution will present a distorted view of our Constitution, our history and the citizens of this country that preceded us.

We have to remember that our education system is a deliberate failure. The last thing the owners want is a well educated citizenry capable of critical thinking. They would much rather have their propagandists assisting in the education process.

Posted by: jlw at July 21, 2010 4:48 PM
Comment #304054

jlw, yes, the Corpocracy has had a good run. It began in earnest in 1913 with the income tax and Woodrow Wilson segregating us along racial lines, re bathrooms, transportation and the like.

Re your last para; IMO we have a good public education system, somewhat fragmented of late. I think it may have been better in the 50’s and 60’s but I can’t know or prove that. But, I really do feel that citizenship curriculum has been dropped to pursue other courses deemed more important to ‘success’, i.e. making money money money money. Yet, most schools have hung on the cheer leading, band, arts, etc. So, maybe there is a more sinister reason citizenship has been pushed to the back of the class.

Re the Constitution; IMO judicial activism has been at the forefront of limiting our freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness, etc. Continual tweaking of laws like Corporate Personhood have done great harm to the Republic. I’m eager to finish Napolitano’s book as it rich on judicial activism.

Otherwise - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 21, 2010 6:37 PM
Comment #304851

where you can buy the best watches at lowest price?
some friends tell me the watches from the web http://www.rolexclassic.com/ have good quality and their service is the best
Here you will see rolex watches ,omega watches,breitling watches,chanel watches,cartier watches and so on.
What do you think? Have you ever gone to the web?what do you think of it?

Posted by: replica watches Rolex watches omega watches breitling watches at July 30, 2010 2:30 AM
Post a comment