5 Responses to “Now 8 GOP presidential candidates state that anchor baby practices should end. Most developed countries aside of the US and Canada passed laws ending birthright citizenship”

1. Veritas
   August 21st, 2015 @ 5:57 am

   Could it be that it does not need to be gotten rid of , but rather adhered to as it is really written.

   Perhaps it is being ABUSED in its application, because it seems that in 1898 the SUPREME COURT already PROHIBITED babies of Illegals born here from being dubbed “citizens.”

   In 1898 two stipulations were set forth with which ILLEGALS cannot comply. Hence their children inherit the parents’ home country citizenship(s).

   For a child of a foreign couple or single foreign woman sans parter to have citizenship the parents MUST HAVE (and this is something ILLEGALS cannot have):
   —

   1) a PERMANENT DOMICILE in the USA (this only comes with a LEGAL status)

   2.) must be “CARRYING ON BUSINESS” (read gainfully employed)…this is something ILLEGALS cannot do with undocumented status.

   Just a rumination….

2. Kevin J Lankford
   August 21st, 2015 @ 6:56 am

   I am a little confounded about the treatment of my last two comments. The first of the two, submitted in the post of “jeb bush trashes Trump”, was just completely deleted, while the second is still awaiting in “moderation” in the post of “not only I agree with Trump and former assistant…….”.

   The only issue of concern I expressed that was not already part of the discussions, was my contention that the decision in the “wong kim ark” trial was for what ever reason, an intentional misinterpretation of the introductory phrase of the 14th amendment. It is my unchangeable belief that only through an immigrant completing the Naturalization process can he/she birth a citizen of the United States, and only by both mother and father being “Naturalized” citizens, can they birth a “Natural Born” citizen. This is the obvious and unmistakable intent of the 14th amendment, and in truth is exactly what was the rule from the inception of our Constitution.

   Legal presence in the United States alone does not and can not satisfy the requirement of the 14th amendment, and for all their references and blathering the judges in the “wong kim ark” decision had to know that.

   I can only presume it is your position to defend or protect the candidacy of an ineligible candidate, such as cruz, rubio, or jindal. As for me, I will not compromise.

3. Veritas
   August 21st, 2015 @ 7:19 am

   Evidence of “CITIZENSHIP TOURISM”– Ireland voted 74% to end BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP:
   —-

   Irish voters have overwhelmingly backed the tightening of their citizenship laws, final referendum results show.

   https://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3801839.stm

   With tallying completed in all 34 counting centres, 79.17% of voters wanted to end the automatic citizenship right for all babies born in Ireland.

4. Veritas
   August 21st, 2015 @ 7:20 am

   Read 79+% against B.R C.

5. JOHN L.
   August 21st, 2015 @ 10:55 am

   Dear Orly:

   Just wish to comment about the so-called anchor baby laws in Canada. Our Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper with the assistance of the majority Conservative House of Commons (like your Congress in the US) repealed all the anchor baby laws in 2012. As such, in the entire world it is only the United States that continue to allow (future Democrats)illegal aliens to use their babies to remain in the country.

   In Canada, we have our own version of illegals and its a real burden on our economy. We only have 200 exhausted deportation officers for all of Canada who are unable to catch up to all the illegals swarming in our country. We have government lawyers who assist these criminal illegals on how to by-pass our laws and remain in the country for years by repeated appeals, all at the expense of the taxpayer!

   Best wishes Orly, you are a brave Lady and I have a lot of respect for you.

Leave a Reply