Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: Children future

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    227
    Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other illegal relatives into permanent U.S. residency.

    That 1965 immigration act needs to be changed! When these illegals come over here and either are already knocked up and give birth in the U.S. I consider this premeditated felonius crime. just sayin'
    "What part of illegal don't you understand?"

  2. #22
    Senior Member CheyenneWoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Indian Hills, CO
    Posts
    1,436

    Re: Children future

    Quote Originally Posted by John_Lan
    well.....i was thinkin about the (mod edit) illegals in san francisco..(i live in a hispanic neighborhood and most are illegals -_-).

    They diserve to be deported but on the other hand, what about their children?? some even attend catholic high schools but if their parents are thrown out, what about their future..they were mostly brought over when they were young so they had no say in the move...wat is your opinion about this?
    Consider this -- How can these illegals afford to send their children to a Catholic school whose tuition rates aren't exactly cheap?

    As for the "poor" children - there is an old saying about the "sins of the fathers being visited upon their children". I DO feel sorry for the kids -- they didn't ask for this. But, what are the alternatives -- take them away from deported parents and put them in the "system"? I don't think that's going to help anyone.

    As for the anchor baby statements - Here is the statement in the 14th Amendment:

    "Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are FOREIGNERS, ALIENS , or who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.
    Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
    Where did people (politicians) get the idea that just because you're born in the US, you are automatically an American citizen. That is NOT what the 14th Amendment says.

    In this case, I think these children should simply be sent back to their native lands with their parents.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    206
    Where did people (politicians) get the idea that just because you're born in the US, you are automatically an American citizen. That is NOT what the 14th Amendment says.
    The idea comes from the 14th Amendment itself. They pay attention to the first sentence only and very conveniently disregard the rest of it.

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    1,021
    Isn't it odd that the 14th amendment can be interpreted so loosely, yet the 2nd amendment which is so clear can have it's meaning contested by the left.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Posts
    206
    Nah, I don't think it's odd at all. If it doesn't add to their interest, they'll ignore it. If it is a perceived threat to their interest, they will try to destroy it.

    Just like it's fine for certain groups to protest and whatnot because that's "freedom of speech", yet it's "racist" or even possibly "hate crime" when other groups do the exact same thing.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •