SuzukiSavage.com - Print Page

SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl
General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Maybe the supreme court didn't agree
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1541035098

Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 10/31/18 at 18:18:18

Title: Maybe the supreme court didn't agree
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 10/31/18 at 18:18:18

http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/

Title: Re: Maybe the supreme court didn't agree
Post by MnSpring on 11/01/18 at 06:07:49

4C5355524F4879497941535F14260 wrote:

http://humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/

Well since the piece about 'Anchor' Babies, was slipped in:
" this alleged right derives only from a footnote slyly slipped into a Supreme Court opinion by Justice Brennan in 1982. You might say it stuck in when no one was looking"

Just like a 8-7/8th month pregnant woman, sneaks Illegally into this country, has a baby on this soil, that clams Citizenship for the child, and get's welfare for herself, for the next 18 YEARS.

It is absolutely clear, that the 14th,
NEEDS To Be Re-Written !

After all, it is Very clear, this was to override, the possible fact that the newly freed Slaves, would not be granted Citizenship.

At the time it was written, their were no, Illegals, looking for FREE, this and that, by sneaking in , and having 'Anchor' Babies.

It is only right to correct that mistake, in a modern time, by a 'civilized' Nation.

Title: Re: Maybe the supreme court didn't agree
Post by justin_o_guy2 on 11/01/18 at 06:24:40

It doesn't need rewritten.
The people reading it need to be honest about what it was meant to do.
Nobody has such an obviously idiotic immigration policy as to reward someone for illegally entering their country if they can manage to squirt out a baby.
It's beyond idiocy. It's economic suicide.
Flood the labor market, drive down wages.
Overload the social safety nets , drive up taxes.
Economic Law will not be broken.

Title: Re: Maybe the supreme court didn't agree
Post by LostArtist on 11/01/18 at 14:29:08

actually,

in 1898:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Title: Re: Maybe the supreme court didn't agree
Post by verslagen1 on 11/01/18 at 14:49:56

0C2F3334013234293334400 wrote:

actually,

in 1898:
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Which is actually...

Quote:

For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)

This measure seems rational as a legal resident has the potential to becoming a citizen.
Whereas a illegal has no potential.