Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Friday, August 13, 2010

Dee's Rant Part Dieux

Dee says, “Republicans HATE Latinos and are raising the level of anger & hate in this immigration debate so they can secure the votes of the right wing extremists.”
This is so far off base that it is hard to know where to begin. Her statements are a good example of HATE designed to raise the level of anger among Latinos to secure their votes. Republicans as a group categorically denounce the nut case accusation that they hate Latinos. The level of anger needs no impetus from Republicans. The gross neglect of the federal government in enforcing the immigration laws is enough to generate plenty of heat without any prompting.
Other evidence of Dee’s brand of hate is her facile use of that term and the word “racist”. The primary motivation of the people she insults is to secure the borders and rid our country of all of the illegals who are surplus to our labor needs. She wants to add that as a new definition for hate and racism. Incredible!
She opines about a move in Arizona to deny children of illegal aliens a birth certificate. This represents an original and creative idea. It demonstrates the depth of Arizonians’ frustration with the fed’s inaction and the ineffectiveness of current policies in solving their huge illegal problem. If the law related to instant citizenship cannot be changed, new innovative ideas will be needed. I suggested once that the Congress enact a law designating the location of the birthing bed of illegal aliens to be the sovereign territory of the mother’s homeland until the baby is delivered, then it reverts back immediately to the U.S. A generic birth certificate would be issued specifying the mother’s homeland as the place of birth.

Dee expresses concern about any successful attempt to change the instant citizenship law. She worries about who would be impacted by the change. She cites the irrelevant statistic that 40% of illegals are visa overstays. She asks, “If a woman who is awaiting the outcome of her request for an extension to her visa, when she delivers, does that mean her baby is illegal?’
The answer is basically yes. No matter what the particular circumstances are the children of noncitizens who are not permanent residents would be given a generic birth certificate citing the mother’s homeland as the source of citizenship of the child. Visa overstays by definition are in this country illegally and should be apprehended and sent home immediately at their own expense. They should have thought about applying for an extension long before the visa expired. But it doesn’t really make any difference if the mother is not a citizen or permanent legal resident. Birthright citizenship would simply not apply to the children of anyone who is not a citizen or a permanent resident. That includes illegal aliens, tourists and others who have not achieved permanent resident status. Some proposals allow citizenship for the child if at least one of the parents is a citizen. Others insist that it is the mother who must be a citizen to avoid any incentive for fraudulent marriages. It is likely that the former view would prevail.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Many countries have a law like this law. Why not the US?