litmus test 4 lou dobbs
Just to confirm the conscientious reader's conjecture, I hereby acknowledge that the genesis for my idea was provided by a guest on Lou Dobbs' cable.channel broadcast. As best as I can recall, the guest neatly concentrated her message with the acronym "CRAG".
Forgetful me, only "Rescind" represented by the "R" stuck in my mind. In this case, she had in mind rescinding the American citizenship of so-called "anchor babies". From what I can tell, the way our Constitution is currently interpreted, if a child is born on our territory to illegal immigrants, then that infant becomes, automatically, an American citizen.
By the bye, that's how Sidney Poitier, the offspring of Bahamian parents, got his citizenship. A bunch of years later, he won an Academy Award for his portrayal of a compassionate carpenter in LILLIES OF THE FIELD . . . back to the main post.
Please, dear Reader, try to understand. Constitutional lawyer, I ain't. Despite the novel THE MAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY, sending an American citizen into exile is patently unconstitutional. Deportation of an anchor baby's parents, who happen to be illegal immigrants and choose to take their child with them, would mean exiling an American citizen. And so, circumstances allow the "illegal immigrant" parents of an anchor baby to avoid deportation. In the final analysis, shouldn't (?) American children, whatever the legal status of their parents, be allowed to remain in the loving care of their parents.
In as much as Americans honor "family values", the best way out of this "fine kettle of fish" seems to involve rescindment of an innocent infant's American citizenship. Once that child's citizenship is rescinded, that child is no longer an American citizen, and is therefore subject to deportation as any other illegal immigrant, including the child's parents.
Getting back to forgetful me, I conjecture that "R" stuck in my mind for a simple reason. Were all three branches of our government to execute in reality the meaning of that "R", the impact would dwarf the combined impact of execution of the "C" and "A" and "G".
Perhaps, dear Reader, you recently tuned into this or that cable news channel, and thereby observed clips, showing demonstrations by thousands upon thousands. The people in those demonstrations were protesting the on-going deliberations by our American Congress with regard to laws that regulate immigration. For my part, I infer they have good cause for protesting. They probably suspect that merely enforcing immigration laws, already on the books, might mean dire consequences for themselves, or their significant others.
Also for my part, I'm now wondering just how many of those demonstrators are "anchor babies" . . . ah, grown, of course. But, nonetheless, their being born in this country allowed their illegal immigrant parents to avoid deportation.
Lest I disappoint my numerous devoted fans by continuing with this oblique approach to the crux of the matter, I shall now remind the good reader of this post's title, expressly, "litmus test 4 lou dobbs".
. . . ah, yes, my little chick-a-dees, lem'me'tel'ya true. Unless your friendly regionally oriented legislator is addressing the matter of rescinding the American citizenship of "anchor babies", that legislator is blowing smoke up your hindquarters, if not your rectal orifice. And that's what I mean by "litmus test".
gotta'admit . . . were it not for Lou Dobbs having the lady with her "CRAG" acronym on his cable.channel broadcast, I doubt I would've heard of "anchor babies".
ya'know . . . with that I'm addressing my rather more discerning readers . . . devising a fair-minded, plus consistent with conventional family values, protocol for dealing with anchor babies and their illegal immigrant parents will bear only the thinnest resemblance to child's play.
Let's consider those thousands of high school students in the aforementioned demonstrations. What sort of "cut-off" date should be set for the birthday of anchor babies? Should (?) those born before a certain date be allowed to retain their American citizenship. Whereas, those born after a certain date are to have theirs rescinded?
Let's suppose all three branches of our government go along with such a law. I can easily imagine a situation, wherein an anchor baby retains citizenship but a sibling born later loses same. What are the parents, who are illegal immigrants, to do?
For my part, if ever the opportunity comes my way, I shall ask my friendly regionally oriented legislators for their individual opinions on what is to be done with "anchor babies". If all I get is obfuscatory smoke, then I'll know that the relevant sapsuckers are only jacking off about illegal immigration.
aaaay, truth be told, I reckon the best I should expect from any friendly regional legislator is a candid acknowledgment that dealing with anchor babies is fraught with sickening complications. And I suppose the best a reasonable person should expect, by way of a promise to attend to the matter, is initiation of discussion.
again, lem'me'tel'ya true, if your friendly regionally oriented legislator was elected on a platform that emphasized "family values", that will not be an easy promise to make, let alone keep.
toodles
......./
.he who is known as sefton
Forgetful me, only "Rescind" represented by the "R" stuck in my mind. In this case, she had in mind rescinding the American citizenship of so-called "anchor babies". From what I can tell, the way our Constitution is currently interpreted, if a child is born on our territory to illegal immigrants, then that infant becomes, automatically, an American citizen.
By the bye, that's how Sidney Poitier, the offspring of Bahamian parents, got his citizenship. A bunch of years later, he won an Academy Award for his portrayal of a compassionate carpenter in LILLIES OF THE FIELD . . . back to the main post.
Please, dear Reader, try to understand. Constitutional lawyer, I ain't. Despite the novel THE MAN WITHOUT A COUNTRY, sending an American citizen into exile is patently unconstitutional. Deportation of an anchor baby's parents, who happen to be illegal immigrants and choose to take their child with them, would mean exiling an American citizen. And so, circumstances allow the "illegal immigrant" parents of an anchor baby to avoid deportation. In the final analysis, shouldn't (?) American children, whatever the legal status of their parents, be allowed to remain in the loving care of their parents.
In as much as Americans honor "family values", the best way out of this "fine kettle of fish" seems to involve rescindment of an innocent infant's American citizenship. Once that child's citizenship is rescinded, that child is no longer an American citizen, and is therefore subject to deportation as any other illegal immigrant, including the child's parents.
Getting back to forgetful me, I conjecture that "R" stuck in my mind for a simple reason. Were all three branches of our government to execute in reality the meaning of that "R", the impact would dwarf the combined impact of execution of the "C" and "A" and "G".
Perhaps, dear Reader, you recently tuned into this or that cable news channel, and thereby observed clips, showing demonstrations by thousands upon thousands. The people in those demonstrations were protesting the on-going deliberations by our American Congress with regard to laws that regulate immigration. For my part, I infer they have good cause for protesting. They probably suspect that merely enforcing immigration laws, already on the books, might mean dire consequences for themselves, or their significant others.
Also for my part, I'm now wondering just how many of those demonstrators are "anchor babies" . . . ah, grown, of course. But, nonetheless, their being born in this country allowed their illegal immigrant parents to avoid deportation.
Lest I disappoint my numerous devoted fans by continuing with this oblique approach to the crux of the matter, I shall now remind the good reader of this post's title, expressly, "litmus test 4 lou dobbs".
. . . ah, yes, my little chick-a-dees, lem'me'tel'ya true. Unless your friendly regionally oriented legislator is addressing the matter of rescinding the American citizenship of "anchor babies", that legislator is blowing smoke up your hindquarters, if not your rectal orifice. And that's what I mean by "litmus test".
gotta'admit . . . were it not for Lou Dobbs having the lady with her "CRAG" acronym on his cable.channel broadcast, I doubt I would've heard of "anchor babies".
ya'know . . . with that I'm addressing my rather more discerning readers . . . devising a fair-minded, plus consistent with conventional family values, protocol for dealing with anchor babies and their illegal immigrant parents will bear only the thinnest resemblance to child's play.
Let's consider those thousands of high school students in the aforementioned demonstrations. What sort of "cut-off" date should be set for the birthday of anchor babies? Should (?) those born before a certain date be allowed to retain their American citizenship. Whereas, those born after a certain date are to have theirs rescinded?
Let's suppose all three branches of our government go along with such a law. I can easily imagine a situation, wherein an anchor baby retains citizenship but a sibling born later loses same. What are the parents, who are illegal immigrants, to do?
For my part, if ever the opportunity comes my way, I shall ask my friendly regionally oriented legislators for their individual opinions on what is to be done with "anchor babies". If all I get is obfuscatory smoke, then I'll know that the relevant sapsuckers are only jacking off about illegal immigration.
aaaay, truth be told, I reckon the best I should expect from any friendly regional legislator is a candid acknowledgment that dealing with anchor babies is fraught with sickening complications. And I suppose the best a reasonable person should expect, by way of a promise to attend to the matter, is initiation of discussion.
again, lem'me'tel'ya true, if your friendly regionally oriented legislator was elected on a platform that emphasized "family values", that will not be an easy promise to make, let alone keep.
toodles
......./
.he who is known as sefton
posted by he who is known as sefton | 1:15 PM
1 Comments:
Long post-
Family values include obeying the law. Those illegal aliens violated the law.
The "born in the USA" amendment, 14th? was implaced to make citizens of former slaves who were traded and bought as property. They were brought here against their will. No so for illegals.
Parents go. Take your childr(en), or leave them for the state to educate--your social worker's job.
I also strongly disagreed with the ruling in kelo. I await your post and reply to the man's question at the car wash (MLK).
Your post really did not address the National Guard issue, but I will try to post and reply.
Post a Comment
<< Home