Tuesday, August 10, 2010

The Resolution to "Anchor" Baby Problem

It's a simple solution.

Toss the illegals out.

They can take the baby along, or give it up. Right now. Take your choice.

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Xenophobia and racism are alive and well on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Xenophobia and racism are alive and well on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Nice try, "anon". Political correctness and racism are the left`s tools to shut up the thinking people and advance their agenda. Your self-inoculation tactics have expired.

Dad29 said...

Anony1 can't be wrong. It posted TWICE, so it MUST be right.

Anonymous said...

they gate gays here too, right daddy?

John Foust said...

What Would Jesus Do?

Dad29 said...

He would obey the law and not illegally arrive in the US.

Amy said...

What Would Jesus Do?

He would obey the law and not illegally arrive in the US.


Yeah, pretty much.

neomom said...

Reminds me of the Indian woman who was deported from Sussex a few years ago. She overstayed her visa. Her husband owned a liquor store, they had two kids who were US citizens. Her choice was to take the kids to India - where they had never been. Or leave them here with her husband.

They sold the store and the whole family moved to India.

But I don't recall any lefties expressing much outrage over it. I guess they save the supposed moral indignation for these decisions/consequences strictly for those waltzing across the southern border for the sole purpose of having an anchor baby.

Anonymous said...

Anchor baby = derogatory reference = ???


Reminds me of the Indian woman who was deported from Sussex a few years ago. She overstayed her visa.


Then we should be saying the same thing regarding Michelle Malkin, who's parents came here legally for employment purposes.


According to the right-wing talking points on immigration--again, by CONSERVATIVE DEFINITION
and TOUTED BY MALKIN HERSELF--a baby born to immigrants here on work or travel visas is still an anchor baby, because the baby lubricates the "guest" worker's path to premature citizenship, and immediately heaps a load of cederal benefits on the baby--all of which Michelle herself took advantage of.

Amy said...

Then we should be saying the same thing regarding Michelle Malkin, who's parents came here legally for employment purposes.

Repeat the last part of that sentence: here legally for employment purposes.

Your own statement renders your argument null and void.

Dad29 said...

Amy, it's almost an Iron Law that lefties are stupid.

Amy said...

Amy, it's almost an Iron Law that lefties are stupid.

Yeah; it's just fun to point it out every once in a while.

Tim Morrissey said...

And all along I thought "Anchor Babies" referred to the children who anchor TV news on weekends.

Anonymous said...

Can you read, Amy? Michelle is touting a plan that would make her ILLEGAL. She is saying even LEGAL immigrants here who have children born in the U.S. ought NOT to have
their kids gain automatic citizenship. That is my point!

Do you agree or disagree with Michelle and the conservative talking points on this contention?

Amy said...

Are you going to backdate it? Michelle Malkin isn't an infant, but a naturalized citizen and an adult. And - I repeat - her parents CAME HERE LEGALLY. LEGALLY. What part of that is lost on you people?

Malkin's parents didn't cross the desert in the middle of the night to avoid detection; they went through the process proscribed by law to come here in accordance with US law. As did millions of other LEGAL immigrants.

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Anonymous said...

All I am doing is simply presenting what Malkin and her conservative brethren have stated repeatedly.

Using their rationale, she would have been in the United States illegally when she was born in 1970. Ergo, she would have become a citizen unlawfully. Ergo, she is being self-serving and is a hypocrite.
She benefitted from something that she conveniently now thinks is misguided. And I thought liberals were only weasels.

Just to make sure, it would seem you have no problem if an "anchor baby" is born by a foreign couple who comes to the United States for school or job purposes and then make concerted efforts to become an American citizen. Fine, I agree with you.

Based on your answer, then, it would also seem you believe Malkin is wrong. Yet you didn't state it for the record. Gee, I wonder why???

Dad29 said...

We're up to what...4 times stupid?

4xstupid=stupid to the fourth power.

What you have here, Amy, is a troll.

Anonymous said...

You're calling Malkin stupid?


Wow, maybe there's hope for you, yet.