14 Responses to “Why Dems and Republicans Like Rubio Back Massive Muslim Immigration”

1. Kevin J Lankford
   September 24th, 2015 @ 3:48 pm

   I can only say it is awfully naive of any one to believe that increasing the voter block of democrats or republicans either one, is behind this government induced invasion from all directions. The lord only knows the last time a president was actually elected by the vote of the U.S. citizens themselves.

   bush and all his cronies would have us believe 9/11 was perpetrated by a bunch of cave dwelling muzzies, and used it for an excuse to hype-up every form of surveillance, while obama and his enablers are having them shipped in by droves, while the only ones being watched over, searched, abused, and harassed, are the true U.S. citizens.

   What ever is really going on is more devious and malicious than just buying votes or padding the voter rosters.

2. Veritas
   September 25th, 2015 @ 5:37 am

   Denk ich an Deutschland in der Nacht,dann bin ich Um den Schlaf gebracht…Thinking of Germany in the night robs me of my sleep. ~ Heinrich Heine : Rape, child abuse ‘rife in German refugee camps’…

3. John
   September 25th, 2015 @ 6:37 am

   This is the scourge that plagues our nation,

   https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-saudi-prince-arrest-beverly-hills-20150924-story.html

   And we should close our borders immediately. The Saudi’s are the scourge of the world. None of them would be allowed in if I were president.

4. Veritas
   September 25th, 2015 @ 7:12 am

   To become a US citizen one must swear allegiance to the Constitution, so how can these respondents become citizens ? (WND): Poll: Most U.S. Muslims would trade Constitution for Shariah

5. Veritas
   September 25th, 2015 @ 10:40 am

   “Refugees” are turning European citizens into “inner refugees” in their own countries:German woman threatened with eviction to make way for refugees…

6. Davey Crockett
   September 25th, 2015 @ 10:48 am

   Yeah, boy, Rubio is a real, freakin’ “load!”

   Not only does he give a Fat-Rats A__, but…

   He’s one of the (4) candidates who is ineligib le to run for the Oval Office!

   And he has the guts to attack The Trumper:…

   Check this out…

   https://www.newsmax.com/Headline/marco-rubio-donald-trump-real-thoughts/2015/09/24/id/693202/?ns_mail_uid=98402439&ns_mail_job=1636812_09252015&s=al&dkt_nbr=7wicehje

7. Kevin J Lankford
   September 26th, 2015 @ 9:23 am

   @ #6 Crockett

   I know of the two “anchor babies” rubio and jindal, and the “canadian anchor baby” cruz. I am not aware of no.4.

8. nwo's Nemesis on the Premesis...
   September 26th, 2015 @ 11:50 am

   Kevin: the fourth is Santorum…

   He also fits into this group.

   I’m not fully aware of all the details, but Dr Orly has had all of these guys surveyed in the past.

   Although, Santorum has been the least hard-core of the (4) ineligibles! And Cruz has shown support for Trump!

   Jindal is the most vociferous of the group, with Rubio right behind him!

9. John
   September 26th, 2015 @ 12:19 pm

   Kevin, it could be that its a mistake, hell I’ve made a whole bunch also.

10. Kevin J Lankford
    September 26th, 2015 @ 3:58 pm

    @ #8 & #9

    I did look it up. It appears that his father became a naturalize U.S. citizen at the age of 7 when his father naturalized in the U.S. in 1930. His father did marry a U.S. citizen and both Rick Santorum’s parents were apparently U.S. citizen. Some have claimed Aldo, Rick’s father did not naturalize until 1961 but supposedly he was merely verifying his citizenship status.

    Details at; http://www.birtherreport.com/2015/01/attorney-rick-santorum-article-ii.html

11. John
    September 26th, 2015 @ 5:44 pm

    10-4 Kevin

12. Kevin J Lankford
    September 27th, 2015 @ 5:34 am

    @ #11 John

    It still may not be settled as CDR Kerchner still contends that aldo santorum, rick santorum’s father did not actuall complete his naturalization until 1961, 3 years after rick was born. Yet it is my understanding of the process that if aldo santorums father did become a naturalized citizen in 1930 his minor children would be covered under the process. So perhaps id does need litigation.

    Any how such conditions do establish the difficulty of insuring loyalties and allegiances of candidates and protecting the office of the president from foreign infiltration. Even the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of our Constitution can be overcome.

13. Steve Wittlake
    September 27th, 2015 @ 2:54 pm

    Why Dems and Republicans Like Rubio Back Massive Muslim Immigration.

    This is totally disgusting coming from a candidate for President.

14. Steve Wittlake
    September 27th, 2015 @ 3:33 pm

    https://www.cairco.org/tags/immigration
    Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment
    Tags:
    immigration, illegal immigration and anchor babies

    The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”
    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 relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).
    Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.
    In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:
    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, 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. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”
    The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
    The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.
    Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called ‘Slaughter-House cases’ [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ excluded from its operation ‘children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.’ In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be ‘not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.’
    Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:
    The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
    (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
    (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
    The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.
    Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents’ nationality or immigration status.
    American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

    Sent from Mail for Windows 10

Leave a Reply