Posted on 08/12/2010 12:49:01 PM PDT by NonZeroSum
Well, the government class is up in arms over Senator Grahamnesty’s suggestion that we amend the 14th Amendment to end the practice of so-called “anchor babies” and automatic birthright citizenship for non-citizens. But perhaps the problem with the senator’s suggestion is that it doesn’t go far enough. One of Don Rumsfeld’s pearls of wisdom was that when a problem seemed unsolvable, the solution could be to enlarge it. Perhaps it’s time to rethink not just birthright citizenship, but citizenship in general, and what it means.
(Excerpt) Read more at pajamasmedia.com ...
I see too often the common thread among immigrants: one family member ‘gets in’ they work, capitalistically which is good. They then sponsor relatives and Moms, Dads, Uncles, and Aunts....they all work part time in the Quickie Mart Hajib now owns and they pay minimum contributions for the required number of quarters - when they hit the mark they (the old ones) speed off to SSA and apply for their just pension....After qualifying, all their work time and pay goes under the table - no taxes, nothing.....just one big goddam drain to real taxpayers...
It’s very easy to become a citizen of any country, if you are born there and your parents lived there.
I read the whole article that Rand wrote, and while interesting, it is also full of holes.
The primary one being that we don’t reject those who want to become citizens legally. All they have to do is follow the rules, the law.
As an American, you can’t just walk into MEXICO, and expect to walk around ‘free’, and file claims against the government for free housing, food, etc.
If you ‘try’ to illegally cross the border into Mexico, unless you have a pile of cash on you, you won’t get far, nor likely even live.
They have ‘rules’ in Mexico.
The problem with the senator’s bogus suggestion is that it was ALREADY DONE in 1996 when they eliminated anchor babies!!!
citizenship is different from anchor babies.
The law RIGHT NOW is that the child citizen follows the parents and when they are deported custody follows the parents.
I support the idea of anyone getting “welfare” from that government must forfeit their right to vote in elections for the duration in which they are reserving “welfare”.
If the Government is to give “gifts” (which it took from unwilling people), the people receiving them “gifts” should not have a say in the matter of whether or not they are given to.
Otherwise you do get the positive feedback which is tyranny of the majority.
This matter should have been a precondition to union and it would have been if our union had ever legally permitted “Welfare” as apposed to “The General Welfare”.(extremely different things)
But in the domain of unenumerated powers which our Federal government has usurped all manner of evils are possible.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.