[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Biden-Harris Admin Sued For Records On Trans Surgeries On Minors Rasmussen Poll Numbers: Kamala's 'Bounce' Didn't Faze Trump Trump BREAKS Internet With Hysterical Ad TORCHING Kamala | 'She is For They/Them!' 45 Funny Cybertruck Memes So Good, Even Elon Might Crack A Smile Possible Trump Rally Attack - Serious Injuries Reported BULLETIN: ISRAEL IS ENTERING **** UKRAINE **** WAR ! Missile Defenses in Kiev ! ATF TO USE 2ND TRUMP ATTACK TO JUSTIFY NEW GUN CONTROL... An EMP Attack on the U.S. Power Grids and Critical National Infrastructure New York Residents Beg Trump to Come Back, Solve Out-of-Control Illegal Immigration Chicago Teachers Confess They Were told to Give Illegals Passing Grades Am I Racist? Reviewed by a BLACK MAN Ukraine and Israel Following the Same Playbook, But Uncle Sam Doesn't Want to Play "The Diddy indictment is PROTECTING the highest people in power" Ian Carroll The White House just held its first cabinet meeting in almost a year. Guess who was running it. The Democrats' War On America, Part One: What "Saving Our Democracy" Really Means New York's MTA Proposes $65.4 Billion In Upgrades With Cash It Doesn't Have More than 100 killed or missing as Sinaloa Cartel war rages in Mexico New York state reports 1st human case of EEE in nearly a decade Oktoberfest tightens security after a deadly knife attack in western Germany Wild Walrus Just Wanted to Take A Summer Vacation Across Europe [Video] 'Days of democracy are GONE' seethes Neil Oliver as 'JAIL' awaits Brits DARING to speak up Police robot dodges a bullet, teargasses a man, and pins him to the ground during a standoff in Texas Julian Assange EXPOSED Howling mad! Fury as school allows pupil suffering from 'species dysphoria' to identify as a WOLF "I Thank God": Heroic Woman Saves Arkansas Trooper From Attack By Drunk Illegal Alien Taxpayers Left In The Dust On Policy For Trans Inmates In Minnesota Progressive Policy Backfire Turns Liberals Into Gun Owners PURE EVIL: Israel booby-trapped CHILDRENS TOYS with explosives to kill Lebanese children These Are The World's Most Reliable Car Brands Swing State Renters Earn 17% Less Than Needed To Afford A Typical Apartment

Immigration
See other Immigration Articles

Title: Lou Dobbs Discusses ‘Anchor Babies’ With Megyn Kelly, But Defends 14th Amendment
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/lou-dobb ... y-but-defends-14th-ammendment/
Published: Aug 2, 2010
Author: by Colby Hall
Post Date: 2010-08-02 20:52:43 by HAPPY2BME-4UM
Ping List: *Illegal Immigration*     Subscribe to *Illegal Immigration*
Keywords: SB1070
Views: 377
Comments: 45

Lou Dobbs Discusses ‘Anchor Babies’ With Megyn Kelly, But Defends 14th Amendment

VIDEO

A lot hay has been made by cable pundits and right of center politician of late, regarding the issue of the 14th Amendment, which essential claims that any child born in the United States is automatically a naturalized citizen, regardless of the immigration status of their parents. Recently Senators Lindsey Graham and John Kyl have considered eliminating birthright citizenship, which is the exact sort of controversy custom-made for cable news programming! Et Voilà – today Fox News host Megyn Kelly and Lou Dobbs discussed this very issue!

When he had his 7PM program on CNN, Dobbs was such a vocal critic of an ineffective illegal immigration, that some even criticized his rhetoric and passion as “jingoistic.” So its somewhat surprising that Dobbs (and to a lesser extent Kelly) come out against the opposition of the 14th Amendment, while also admitting the core problem with so-called “anchor babies” (the derisive term used to described naturalized citizens born to illegal immigrants.

Subscribe to *Illegal Immigration*

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.

#1. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#0)

the real problem is not anchor babies, but the fact that employers to this day can easily hire as many illegal immigrants as they want with no penalty at all from the government. I don't watch Lou Dobbs, but I'd be surprised if he focuses people's minds on that simple fact. Puppets in the media (like Lou Dobbs) and republican politicians try to tell us that all will be well when we 'get control of the border' by putting huge resources onto it and at the same time allow 'guest workers'. Guest workers are just semi-slaves, think of them as indentured servants which were a pre-cursor for outright slavery.

But equally urgent for the cause of justice is the plight of the illegals who have been here for years and put down roots, yet may not be allowed to stay under reasonable conditions. I'm with Ronald Reagan, I think that if a person has lived in this country for any length of time and held a job, then we should not only let them stay, but let them be citizens without being guest workers first.

The illegals were invited here in 1986 by republican legislation that took all penalties from employers for hiring them. When the government decides to pass laws giving harm to the employers for hiring illegals, then that is when they will not be welcome here.

An illegal immigrant working here and living here can be given great harm either by state law enforcement or federal law enforcement. But the employer is not harmed. In Arizona we have laws that penalize employers for hiring illegals. It is very difficult for employers to get caught in that trap. And if they are caught the penalties are very light. They escalate if you're caught more than once. I read in the paper about one employer who was caught 3 times. and they were caught hiring people that they knew were illegal, people whom the government had told them were illegal, they hired anyway. That company had to shut down its operations for 1 day after being caught the 3'rd time.

I am 100% certain that many employers in Arizona hire illegal immigrants every single day even today. I am 100% certain that they generally have no fear of the law at all.

Consider a person whom I know. He first came here in 1991 from Mexico. He became a very valuable person for his employer. His employer knows he's illegal, but they keep him anyway and they hire lots of his friends even today as new employees. He brought his family to Arizona from Mexico. He tried to get them to live here. But he found hostility to his family. that was unacceptable, he sent them home. and so 80% of his paycheck goes to Mexico. The Republicans would turn that fellow into an indentured servant and not let him ever be free. The Democrats as we know will go along with anything the republicans want.

It is very easy for the government to identify all illegals who get paychecks from employers. Most illegals work for paychecks and the taxes are withheld. For all the illegals who have been here even for a while and held a job we should simply make them choose between a road to US citizenship or else a one-way trip back to where they came. And we should likewise penalize employers who hire new illegals. But the existing illegals should be given the opportunity for citizenship. If they reject that opportunity which would include a renunciation of their previous citizenship, then they should be sent home.

but contrary to what these idiot republicans and their democrat friends want, we should not have indentured servants in our country. The guest workers will be de-facto indentured servants. It is an affront to our values to have indentured servants here. It drives wages down and destroys our economy. We learned that in pre-1865 southern states. Employers will always favor indentured servants who can't quit. Just like they will always prefer slaves who can't quit. That was proven in the old south. and it did not benefit the economy of the old south. When factories were made in the south the labor was always slave labor. Because business people could not imagine that free labor would be better than slave labor. Free labor though it cost more was better than slave labor. Slavery in 1800's old south was a lost cause in that the slaves were not productive. and yet they clung to it.

The same drama is being repeated today. We need guest workers to solve all of our problems because we don't have enough illegal immigrants. Free labor only - please!

Red Jones  posted on  2010-08-02   23:00:03 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Anchor Babies: Is Citizenship an Entitled Birthright?

The 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution as part of the post Civil War reforms aimed at addressing injustices to African Americans. It states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States" and was crafted so that state governments could never deny citizenship to anyone born in the United States. However, when the amendment was crafted, the United States had no immigration policy, and thus the authors saw no need to state explicitly, what they believed was understood. The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. In the case of illegal aliens who are temporarily or unlawfully in the United States, because their native country has a claim of allegiance to the child, the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship.

"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.
Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

farmfriend  posted on  2010-08-03   1:34:52 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

The American Resistance

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).

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. 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 original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law 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.

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.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

farmfriend  posted on  2010-08-03   1:40:22 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

#30. To: farmfriend (#8)

Great post, thanks for the ping.

James Deffenbach  posted on  2010-08-03 14:05:27 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register]