I’m going to post one of my occasional items that are specifically designed to send my liberal readers (assuming there are any!) into an apoplectic paroxysm of howling indignation. ann Coulter, she who promises to throw a firebomb at liberal shibboleths weekly, has a column on liberal hypocrisy in calling conservatives hypocrites for not supporting the right of any foreign national to illegally cross the border at eight and a half months pregnant and drop a baby, thereby automatically qualifying to legally pick the pockets of law-abiding tax papers on the basis of said baby’s conferred citizenship.
Conservatives rightly point out that no other major country allows any child-bearing female in the world a free pass to welfare simply for having a baby in Laredo rather than Nuevo Laredo. Liberals, on the other hand scream foul. “You can’t look at what other countries do… You have to follow our own laws!” Which is a really strange position to take when 99.99999999% of the time they are screaming that we have to look at what other countries do not at our own xenophobia judicial history. Here’s what Ann says:
I think we should look at other countries’ laws, then adopt the good ones and pass on the bad ones.
For example, let’s skip clitorectomies, arranged marriages, dropping walls on homosexuals, honor killings and the rest of the gorgeous tapestry of multiculturalism.
Instead, how about we adopt foreign concepts such as disallowing frivolous lawsuits, having loser-pays tort laws, and requiring that both parents be in the U.S. legally and at least one parent be a citizen, for a child born here to get automatic citizenship?
I don’t know about you, but I like it. And no, the 14th Amendment does not necessarily require us to give a welfare card to every wetback baby born here. Here’s the text
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.
I will grant that there is room for debate about what the clause, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means. I believe the correct interpretation (and the one that is the justification for why diplomat’s babies born here are not “US Citizens” is that “an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.”
If course that interpretation means a whole lot fewer automatic votes for the Democrat-Socialist party so the liberals and their lamestream media sycophants cannot allow that interpretation to be the accepted one. Remember, the D-S is hanging their hat on Cloward-Piven.
So, I say by all means, let’s adopt the immigration practices of other countries, especially Mexico, from whence most of these “anchor babies” come from.
Leave a comment