Skip to comments.Ann Coulter: LOOK WHO'S 'NATIVIST' NOW! (Even SWEDEN doesn’t allow “Anchor Babies”)
Posted on 08/18/2010 2:06:34 PM PDT by Syncro
LOOK WHO'S 'NATIVIST' NOW!
August 18, 2010
"Nativism in American politics has become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Republican circles for a judge to acknowledge paying any attention to foreign courts and their legal rulings." -- New York Times editorial, Aug. 3, 2010
The New York Times runs this same smug editorial every few months -- at least I think it's the same editorial -- to vent its spleen at conservatives who object to American judges relying on foreign law to interpret the U.S. Constitution.
But when it comes to anchor babies, The New York Times and the entire Democratic establishment plug their ears and hum rather than consider foreign laws on citizenship. (For more on this, see "Mexican immigration law versus U.S. immigration law.")
Needless to say, America is the only developed nation that allows illegal aliens to gain full citizenship for their children merely by dropping them on U.S. soil.
Take Sweden -- one of the left's favorite countries. Not only is there no birthright citizenship, but even the children of legal immigrants cannot become Swedish citizens simply by being born there. At least one parent must be a citizen for birth on Swedish soil to confer citizenship.
(Applicants also have to know the lyrics to at least one ABBA song, which explains why you don't see groups of Mexicans congregating outside Ikea stores.)
Liberals are constantly hectoring Americans to adopt Sweden's generous welfare policies without considering that one reason Sweden's welfare policies haven't bankrupted the country (yet) is that the Swedes don't grant citizenship to the children of any deadbeat who manages the spectacular feat of giving birth on Swedish soil.
In Britain, only birth to at least one British citizen or the highest class of legal immigrant, a "settled" resident with the right to remain, such as Irish citizens, confers citizenship on a child born in England. And if the British birthright is through the father, he must be married to the mother (probably a relic from Victorian times when marriage was considered an important institution).
Even Canada, the country most similar to the United States, grants citizenship upon birth -- but excludes the noncitizen parents of anchor babies from receiving benefits, such as medical care, schooling and other free stuff given to Canadian citizens.
For example, let's skip clitorectomies, arranged marriages, dropping walls on homosexuals, honor killings and the rest of the gorgeous tapestry of multiculturalism.
Read the rest at Ann Coulter.Com
"...Needless to say, America is the only developed nation that allows illegal aliens to gain full citizenship for their children merely by dropping them on U.S. soil.ZING!
Take Sweden -- one of the left's favorite countries.
Not only is there no birthright citizenship, but even the children of legal immigrants cannot become Swedish citizens simply by being born there.
At least one parent must be a citizen for birth on Swedish soil to confer citizenship.
(Applicants also have to know the lyrics to at least one ABBA song, which explains why you don't see groups of Mexicans congregating outside Ikea stores.)" -- Ann Coulter
Two can play at that game, to wit:
Globalism in American politics has become so rampant that it is considered scandalous in Demcrat circles for a judge to recognize that the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
That's a great cartoon, but I'm going to have to abuse the mods and have it removed...Too bad, although I understand his concern for online property rights.
Mike should be O.K. with us posting a LINK to his WEBSITE...
...with that wonderful "Throw out the Anchor (Baby)!" cartoon......right?
OK. Apologies, Mike. Tnx, RonDog, Mod
...The Times' editorial denouncing "nativist" conservatives ended with this little homily:KA-POW!"(Republicans) might want to re-read James Madison's description in the Federalist Papers of the ideal legislator: 'He ought not to be altogether ignorant of the law of nations.'"Of course, conservatives' objection to judges looking to foreign law is that they're judges, not legislators -- least of all "ideal legislators."
Judges are supposed to be interpreting a constitution and laws written by legislators, not legislating from the bench.
Hey, whose turn is it to remind The New York Times that the legislative branch of our government is different from the judicial branch? -- Ann Coulter
It just doesn't seem fair, Ann vs the New York Times. :o)
From an article by Lisa DePasquale called "Being Ann" (posted on townhall.com last year)And, speaking of "Ann being Ann" -- check out the lastest thread in the ongoing Ann @ homocon saga:
World Net Daily Shows Intolerance,
Boots Ann Coulter For Speaking At Conference for Gay Republicans
08/18/2010 12:15:24 PM PDT · by Amerisrael · 81 replies The Lid ^
"World Net Daily has decided to drop conservative pundit and author, Ann Coulter as the keynote speaker for WND's "Taking America Back National Conference" next month.
Because of her plan be the keynote speaker at "HOMOCON," an event put together by GOProud the first genuinely conservative group for gay Republicans."
"WND Editor Joseph Farah reports this exchange with Ms Coulter: 'Asked by Farah why she was speaking to GOProud, Coulter said:"They hired me to give a speech, so I'm giving a speech. I do it all the time..."
Ann getting in trouble for saying something controversial!Who woulda thunk it!
Wow, she still has the lab coat from when she helped Dr. Zoo out at the Intitute of Phenomonology!Not sure that you would call what Ann was wearing in that picture a "lab coat" (!) ...
...but here it is again, probably from the same photo shoot:
: > )
I can see right through her!