Thread: Children of Illegal Aliens from Mexico are Mexican by Birth!

A story from Frosty Wooldridge-

“That is where this story should begin and that is where it should end! The Mexican Constitution, Chapter II, Article 30, paragraph II, states that you are a Mexican by birth if born on foreign territory, sons or daughters of Mexican parents born in national territory. There you have it! Anchor Babies are not U.S. citizens! They are citizens of Mexican according to the Mexican Constitution.

Chapter II
Mexicans
Article 30. Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
A. Mexicans by birth are:
I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of their parents:
II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
III. Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels.
B. Mexicans by naturalization are:
I. Foreigners who obtain letters of naturalization from the Secretariat of Foreign Relations;
II. A foreign woman who marries a Mexican man and has or establishes her domicile within the national territory.

Full story is here: http://tinyurl.com/29az6zx


This should put a STOP top any Question about Anchor Babies!

Ken

Here is the story at above link.....

Mexican citizenship law contradicts anchor baby amnesty
By Frosty Wooldridge

http://beforeitsnews.com/story/337/356/ ... nesty.html

www.BeforeItsNews.comQ

Last month, U.S. Senator Harry Reid’s anchor baby Dream Act amnesty burned down in flames. But Washington DC insiders predict the bill will surface again in the future.

What does the bill advocate? It allows an estimated 2.1 million Mexican anchor babies born to illegal alien parents within U.S. borders to enjoy instant citizenship. That in turn would allow those ‘citizens’ to sponsor countless millions of their family into the U.S. via ‘chain migration’ or ‘family reunification’.

Long time activist, Michelle Dallacroce, director at www.MothersAgainstIllegalAmnesty.com researched a little known fact about the Mexican Constitution.

What did you discover about Mexican children born in foreign lands and how does it affect the Dream Act amnesty for anchor babies?

“Liberation!â€

"Boy Mothers Against Illegal Amnesty ain't playin' around are they?"

All anchor babies get dual citizenship when born in this country, so when illegals say they can't take their kids with them when deported, that's bunk.

I brought up the point that even if the Dreamers were given amnesty and a pathway to U.S. citizenship they would still have dual citizenship. The United States has never demanded that a naturalized U.S. citizen give up their citizenship to another country. Some countries make their citizens give up their citizenship upon becoming a U.S. citizen, but more and more countries have been changing their restrictions.

This is the real question in regards to Obama's citizenship. Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship. If he was adopted by his stepfather and became Indonesian as his school records show, then his U.S. citizenship had to have been given up by his mother. This is why he entered college as an international student. This answers why he was able to go to Pakistan on a Indonesian passport. Sorry I got away from the subject.

Mexico began allowing and recognizing dual citizenship in 1998.....how convenient.

Originally Posted by escalade

Mexico began allowing and recognizing dual citizenship in 1998.....how convenient.

Amazing how governments work isn't it?

I think that the point made here in this thread is key to publicize far and wide in hopes that people finally realize what it all means.

So essentially we are educating, feeding, housing, etc., millions of mexican citizens in our country. Once again, this proves America is mexico's welfare system! How things have changed. The once proud United States would have never let this invasion be carried out in past times!

What an insult to great Americans like General Zachary Taylor, who fought the mexicans and defeated them and then proceeded to march all the way to mexico city, capturing it! Of course the coward Santa Anna surrendered and asked for another truce, which was later reneged on. Mexico is notorious for reneging on agreements entered into! That’s what you get with that culture of dishonesty and corruption.

If that is not an invasion then what do you call it? History shows Mexico has never gotten over their military defeats at the hands of the United States, Spain and the French (gringos).

Mexico was invaded by the French, Great Britian and Spain because Mexico was a deadbeat country who refused to pay it's foreign debt. The French actually seized Mexico City in 1862 (America captured Mexico City 1847) and the French installed a new government; declaring a Mexican empire, with Napoleon III offering the crown to the Austrian archduke Maximilian, who became Emperor of Mexico.

Unfortunately, the French were never able to gain control over the entire country and events in Europe forced Napoleon III to withdraw his troops in 1867. Shortely thereafter, Maximilian was arrested and executed by public firing squad in Mexico City.

This history is important because it sets the foundation for the invasion we are being subjected to today. I have no doubt in my mind that the invasion by mexico today is being fought by sending millions of their peasants north to breed and ultimately conquer (or atleast bring us to our knees financially) the United States – something their pathetic and cowardly Mexican military could never accomplish. The plan is to take back all the territory given up and paid for under the surrender terms outlined in The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo.

Moreover, it's to have complete and dominant control over American society via the anchor baby and the millions of illegal invaders demanding citizenship in this country.

These people are not Americans and never will be! Take your anchor babies and get out!

One of the reasons the French left Mexico was because we had mobilized troops on our border with Mexico and made it clear that we would not tolerate France's presence there. The French got the message, and high tailed it out of Mex. The French were banking on the South winning the American Civil War, who apparently had no problem with the French controlling Mexico. They took Mexico when Washington was tied up fighting the Civil War. Once the North gained the upper hand, they were able to concentrate on forcing France's hand to leave Mexico.

Mexico never shows any appreciation for this.

Apparently we thought our nation was safer with Mexico as a neighbor.

We were wrong.

I wish we would have just let France have Mexico.

Originally Posted by BearFlagRepublic

One of the reasons the French left Mexico was because we had mobilized troops on our border with Mexico and made it clear that we would not tolerate France's presence there. The French got the message, and high tailed it out of Mex. The French were banking on the South winning the American Civil War, who apparently had no problem with the French controlling Mexico. They took Mexico when Washington was tied up fighting the Civil War. Once the North gained the upper hand, they were able to concentrate on forcing France's hand to leave Mexico.

Mexico never shows any appreciation for this.

Apparently we thought our nation was safer with Mexico as a neighbor.

We were wrong.

I wish we would have just let France have Mexico.

This is true. The United States was embroiled in our own Civil War to get involved in 1863. One would have thought that we would have had better sense than to intervene on the side of Mexico once the Civil War ended, considering our own problems with Mexico (Alamo, Goliad, and Fredonia) in the years prior. We should have known better than to ever trust Mexico or expect any gratitude from that corrupted, third world nuisance.

We should have let France do as they please with Mexico...