Anchors Away?
Before all you nautical nerds yell at me, I know the correct phrase is "anchors aweigh."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchors_Aweigh
Anyway......
Lately there has been a lot of talk about the new Arizona 'immigration laws' and all that they entail. One of the latest arguments is the question of whether or not "anchor babies" should be denied naturalized status despite being born here.
"Lemme splain, no, that would take too long, lemme sum up..." Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride.
An "anchor baby" is what people refer to as a child born to illegal immigrant parents but by the virtue of being born on US soil the child is a natural born American citizen and the parents are typically allowed to stay for the sake of "keeping families together."
In the past, an anchor baby was the road to citizenship. I was one of those anchor babies... my parents' legal status notwithstanding, (and I am NOT saying that they had me solely for that reason) the fact is that if you had a child here in the 70's, after a certain amount of time you were allowed to apply for citizenship and were rarely denied. Immigration laws in general were pretty lax in those days, and this was just one loophole. Getting married with an American, which you can still do, is still common practice. But no longer can you claim citizenship because your child is an American. Especially if you are illegal! Now I think the rule is that the child is an American with all the rights afforded all Americans, BUT, the parents have to leave. They can take the child with them, or leave him/her with relatives legally here. If they take the child back 'home', the child can return on his/her own with full citizenship status when they are 18. Don't quote that, I just think it's like that.
"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.
Republicans in Arizona have recently made a push for a law that would deny an 'anchor baby' his American Citizen status because they were born under false pretenses. (their parents being here illegally and by that logic the child should have never been born here)
Also, not all countries offer automatic citizenship by birth.
And until the 14th amendment was adopted and written into the Constitution, it was not offered here.
The 14th Amendment starts off like this....
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside...."
It was written to offer former slaves born in the USA full citizenship status.
Those are the Republicans arguments.... I actually have no opinion on the matter right now, I am more interested what everyone else thinks and more importantly, why they feel that way. PLEASE LEAVE RACISM OUT OF IT! That is not a valid argument.
I have a cousin, she is Ecuadorian. Her two daughters were born here. In my opinion, she was smart. When she got pregnant she applied for a visa to come visit the US. It was granted and she flew here 8-9 months pregnant. Her daughter was born an American. When her visa was up, she went back home. After some years, she became pregnant again. Once again, she came here to have her baby. On a personal level, I think she has given her 2 daughters the greatest gift on this planet. So for her, and them, I am glad.
Here is where the slope gets slippery. Article II, Section 5 of the Constitution requires that the President MUST be a Natural Born Citizen. The purpose for this being that the President's allegiance can never be questioned.
Now, my cousin's daughters were born here and are American citizens but for all intents and purposes, they are Ecuadorian. That is all they know, that is where they grew up, that is where all their friends and family are. (not including 'distant' cousins like me) If they were to rise to the office of the President of the United States of America, assuming they came here and made that their goal, where would their allegiance be? I personally believe that in matters concerning Ecuador at least, they would be Ecuadorian first.
Enter Barack Obama. Many dispute whether or not he actually was born on US soil. Is his allegiance first to America? Would he die for it? I personally also doubt this.
I want to know what you folks believe... please comment.
Do you agree or disagree that we should deny 'anchor babies' their American citizenship status.
Gubment cheese stinks!
Junior, your liberal kook friend who shall remain nameless constantly proclaims that he is NOT a 'liberal' or 'democrat'. Instead he claims he is, for lack of a better term, a moralist! He even says that he has no affiliation and does not put himself in any group or political party. Instead he just keeps attacking what he calls 'the Elites'.
I say they are all Comunistas, VIVA FIDEL!!! VIVA CHE!!!!
Put simply that is all they are, it is all the same philosophy.... There is a big debate going on with all the liberal vs. conservative pundits on whether or not Obama is a Socialist. Conservatives claim that Obama's policies and actions define socialism and Liberals just denounce any of that talk as racist (instead of arguing on the merits.)
I SAY, huevos! All the semantics of what they call themselves... liberals, democrats, progressives, socialists, communists, fascists, oh wait, no one calls themselves a fascist anymore although let me assure you it is a leftist ideal.
Bull caca! I call them all Communists. that IS what they are. For a more all-encompassing definition use the term leftist. They all mean the same thing, the Robin Hood theory of take from the rich and give to the poor.
Commies don't like us, conservatives, because when they try to rationalize how we can be "against" the poor and the needy they can't come up with anything but that we are evil and uncaring. The problem is in how THEY view their stance. Obviously we are not "against" the poor and needy. Of course we are NOT Pro War, that's just stupid! What they don't see is what we do, the method of solving these problems and like we always say, it isn't perfect but it's the best system there is.. FREEDOM. Not freedom from bondage like slaves which is all they can comprehend, but freedom to decide for oneself where their life leads them and not attached or beholden to another's ideal or life path. Freedom to BE POOR!!! Now, liberals ask right now, "Who the hell would CHOOSE to be poor!? Damn Chino is dumb." People choose it everyday! They can't hold down a job, spend what they make on beer and partying. Refuse to learn a skill that can keep them employed, I know some that refuse to learn ENGLISH!!!! Come on, we all know that slacker that calls in sick because he got drunk the night before and has a hangover therefore he is too sick to come to work!
Well, let's not give the power to the COMMIES to define the conversation and make it about nomenclature! Let's talk about what works and what doesn't! Leftist ideas have NEVER worked in the history of the world!!! In fact, not only have they not worked, but they have given birth to some of the most evil dictators this planet has ever known!!! Our system was tried only once, and guess what, it worked! Now dumb ass commies are slowly trying to bring us back to 1984 and succeeding, all in the name of morality!
Seriously though…. spending spree?
It's gotten to the point now that I am seriously worried for the future of our country with our current course. Now Mister Obama, (purposely diminishing his title as the libs did to Former President Bush, did you not believe that what goes around comes around?) now Mister Obama wants to go on a "spending spree!" Is this a sick joke? Am I on candid camera to get my reaction to when I hear him say this?
I must be, this can't be happening. The American people aren't falling for this bullshit again, are they?
NO THEY ARE NOT!!! As I stated b4, I have faith in the American people. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me." I said this on July 30th and I'll say it again. Americans are not stupid, just pre-occupied.
http://www.juniorychino.com/2009/07/29/you-cannot-have-that-surgery/#respond
The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts proves this FACT. Now I'll be honest, I never heard of Scott Brown, I do not know what his policies are or what his voting record is if he has one at all. I don't know if he is a true conservative or a RINO (Republican In Name Only).
All I know is that he now occupies an all powerful senate seat once held by the 'Lion of the Senate', Ted Kennedy, in one of the most liberal states in the Union.
There is a REPUBLICAN in office in Massachusetts!!! "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's court" if I may make an analogy.
Suck on that!
Our dear Leader submits to world leaders
I know other Presidents, including Bush, have done similarly, but Geeeez man, just look at him. It's disgusting, even the little emperor is laughing at him.
Fort Hood; Is It Terrorism?
I mean, what more needs to be said?
In the same hour that Hassan was killing 13 people at the US Army base, it was being reported that there were THREE shooters, 12 dead and up to 60 wounded: at that time I knew it was a terrorist act; I did not know he was a Muslim, I did not know his name. No one knew. I did not assume he was Muslim, in fact I was surprised to find out that he was. Even without all that information, at 3:06PM when Sean Hannity came on the air he said that he thought this might be a terrorist act. I screamed at my radio, "Of course it is!!!!!" Not a Muslim attack, just a terrorist attack under the definition of terrorism!
Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist. William Ayers IS a terrorist. Richard Reed was a terrorist. These are terrorist acts.
Now some of you with a brain in your head are saying, "duh, no sh!t sherlock! What's your point Chino."
Why won't Obama call it as such and why doesn't he want us "jumping to conclusions." Why won't the media call it what it is?
WHY?
Thank you Obama. Or should I say, MaoBama or Oba Mao as he is known in China? Thank you for once again reminding us what it feels like to have Islamic Extremists killing our people here at home. Would this have happened under McCain? I really don't know, I can't say yes or no, that would be pure speculation and unfair. What I do know, is that after 9-11, George W. Bush did not allow it. He made it his mission to make sure that it did not happen.
What is Obama's mission?