The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
The Daily Beast Discovers the Horrors of Anchor Baby and Dual Citizenship
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From The Daily Beast:

Russians Flock to Trump Properties to Give Birth to U.S. Citizens

While the president rails against children of undocumented immigrants, wealthy Russians rent his condos—at huge costs—so they can have American kids.

Katie Zavadski
09.06.17 10:50 PM ET

Anatoliy Kuzmin held out his daughter’s blue U.S. passport over a red Russian one and snapped a photo from a Florida beach.
“Woohoo! Got dual citizenship for my daughter!” he wrote on Instagram.

American citizenship for the newborn girl was the goal of Kuzmin and his Instagram-celebrity wife, who sought the help of birth-tourism services in Florida for the arrival of their first child. They are among the estimated hundreds of Russian parents who flock to the U.S. annually for warm weather, excellent medical care, and, more importantly, birthright American citizenship.

And many, like Kuzmin and his wife, stay at President Donald Trump’s properties in Florida. …

Many of the companies that cater to Russian birth tourists advertise their services openly and warn no one will get in trouble as long as they don’t lie on immigration paperwork.

 
Hide 53 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Paul Rain says:

    Well, it could be a lot worse. This guy is an actual Russian Russian, isn’t he? His wife certainly is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Colleen Pater
    which is why the beast is outraged cant be having whites moving to america thats counter productive
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/the-daily-beast-discovers-the-horrors-of-anchor-baby-and-dual-citizenship/#comment-1997489
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. If immigrants, legal and illegal, voted 70% Republican we would have had a moratorium, a wall, an aggressive deportation program, and an end to birth-right citizenship and chain migration decades ago.

    Read More
    • Agree: Trelane
    • Replies: @Olorin
    Well, I knew a good number who voted for Reagan.

    And see how that worked out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Russian Birth Tourists = Bad
    Chinese Birth Tourists = Good

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bob who says Dreamers are brood parasites
    Mestizo Birth Tourists = Great

    So we know America was at maximum greatness prior to trump.

    Cuckoos and Cowbirds all.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Yes, YAA, I believe the Chinese are the best-in-class at this birth tourism thing. I should say, the purposeful birth tourism, as they are indeed a savvy bunch. Were I to rectally extract some numbers, as is often the case, I would say the Chinese would be 3 orders of magnitude higher than the Russians at this scam. IOW, the Russians are a drop in the bucket compared to purposeful births of this type by the Chinese, and also compared to the sometimes purposeful ones by the illegal Latin Americans.

    Russian Birth Tourists = Bad
    Chinese Birth Tourists = Good

     
    Yes, gotta keep the Commies out. Wait, which ones are the Commies again?*
    .
    .
    .
    * Survey says: The real Commies are the bureaucratic Comrades in the American Feral Government who purposefully let this all happen.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Part One. Anchor Baby Argument, Mexican Case.

    The ruling part of the US Constitution is Amendment Fourteen: “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.”

    Here is the ruling part of the Mexican Constitution, Section II, Article Thirty:

    Article 30
    Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
    A. Mexicans by birth are:
    I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of
    their parents:
    II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and
    a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
    III. Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels. ”

    A baby born to Mexican nationals within the United States is automatically a Mexican citizen. Under the anchor baby reasoning, this baby acquires US citizenship at the same time and so is a dual citizen. Mexican citizenship is primary because it stems from a primary source, the parents’ citizenship and the law of Mexico. The Mexican Constitution states the child of Mexican parents is automatically a Mexican citizen at birth no matter where the birth occurs. Since the child would be a Mexican citizen in any country, and becomes an American citizen only if born in America, it is clear that Mexico has the primary claim of citizenry on the child. This alone should be enough to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction thereof argument. Since Mexican citizenship is primary, it has primary jurisdiction; thus by the plain words of the Fourteenth such child is not an American citizen at birth.

    [MORE]

    There is a second argument for primary Mexican citizenship in the case of anchor babies. Citizenship, whether Mexican or American, establishes rights and duties. Citizenship is a reciprocal relationship, thus establishing jurisdiction. This case for primary Mexican citizenship is supported by the fact that Mexico allows and encourages Mexicans resident in the US, either illegal aliens or legal residents, to vote in Mexican elections. They are counted as Mexican citizens abroad, even if dual citizens, and their government provides widespread consular services as well as voting access to Mexicans residing in the US. As far as Mexico is concerned, these persons are not Mexican in name only, but have a civil relationship strong enough to allow a political voice; in essence, full citizenship. Clearly, all this is the expression of typical reciprocal civic relationships expressed in legal citizenship, further supporting the establishment of jurisdiction.
    Part Two: Wong Kim Ark (1898) case. (Birthright Citizenship)
    The Wong Kim Ark (WKA) case is often cited as the essential legal reasoning and precedent for application of the fourteenth amendment as applied to aliens. There has been plenty of commentary on WKA, but the truly narrow application of the case is emphasized reviewing a concise statement of the question the case was meant to decide, written by Hon. Horace Gray, Justice for the majority in this decision.

    “[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.” (Italics added.)

    For WKA to justify birthright citizenship, the parents must have “…permanent domicile and residence…” But how can an illegal alien have permanent residence when the threat of deportation is constantly present? There is no statute of limitation for illegal presence in the US and the passage of time does not eliminate the legal remedy of deportation. This alone would seem to invalidate WKA as a support and precedent for illegal alien birthright citizenship.

    If illegal (or legal) alien parents are unemployed, unemployable, illegally employed, or if they get their living by illegal means, then they are not “. . .carrying on business. . .”, and so the children of indigent or criminal aliens may not be eligible for birthright citizenship

    If legal aliens meet the two tests provided in WKA, birthright citizenship applies. Clearly the WKA case addresses the specific situation of the children of legal aliens, and so is not an applicable precedent to justify birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.

    Part three. Birth Tourism

    Occasionally foreign couples take a trip to the US during the last phase of the wife’s pregnancy so she can give birth in the US, thus conferring birthright citizenship on the child. This practice is called “birth tourism.” WKA provides two tests for birthright citizenship: permanent domicile and residence and doing business, and a temporary visit answers neither condition. WKA is therefore disqualified as justification for a “birth tourism” child to be granted birthright citizenship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Anchor Baby mom.

    Infantrator.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. IHTG says:

    lmao: https://www.instagram.com/anatoliy.kuzmin/

    This is like the beginning of the alternate history that leads to Hotline Miami.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Clyde
    Good link. Photos show His wife is stacked and he's a short bald head dude who has been lifting weights. He's living the Miami immigrant dream....I suppose. Wonder how he made his loot in Russia?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Anchor babies and dual citizenship strike many White Core Americans as odd concepts. The ruling class of the American Empire is trying to destroy the national identity of the United States; anchor babies and dual citizenship are two tools that the ruling class uses to weaken and dilute national identity in the United States.

    White Core Americans must defeat the planned destruction of American national identity by destroying the globalized ruling class.

    National identity will now take center stage in American politics. National identity will be the driving force in all nations founded and settled by the European Christian people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. I know a German who walked out of East Germany in 1946 to settle in West Germany. He took his wife to America to have their first child purely so that he would have the insurance of an anchor baby. Perilous times. He returns once a year for business but the family stuck in Germany.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Flip
    I know a woman whose (still living in her 90s) grandmother was part of an Austrian family which came to America and then went back to Europe. Her grandmother was the only one of the siblings born in America, so she came over during the Depression and somehow sponsored the rest of her family since they were all born in Austria.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Clyde says:
    @IHTG
    lmao: https://www.instagram.com/anatoliy.kuzmin/

    This is like the beginning of the alternate history that leads to Hotline Miami.

    Good link. Photos show His wife is stacked and he’s a short bald head dude who has been lifting weights. He’s living the Miami immigrant dream….I suppose. Wonder how he made his loot in Russia?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Olorin says:
    @Harry Baldwin
    If immigrants, legal and illegal, voted 70% Republican we would have had a moratorium, a wall, an aggressive deportation program, and an end to birth-right citizenship and chain migration decades ago.

    Well, I knew a good number who voted for Reagan.

    And see how that worked out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Well, I knew a good number who voted for Reagan.

    And see how that worked out.
     
    Reagan's mistake was taking the Party of the Workers at its word about enforcement.

    He should have known better-- he spent forty years in that party.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. dearieme says:

    Hundreds? A rounding error.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I wonder how many adult anchor babies are paying their US taxes… We’re one of the few countries that taxes foreign income. Somehow I suspect anchor babies today will be baffled by their tax liabilities tomorrow (and in all likelihood shirk them).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    I wonder how many adult anchor babies are paying their US taxes
     
    You assume they earn enough to reach the taxation threshold.
    , @LondonBob
    I know an extremely wealthy Indian from Africa, he was an anchor baby but he went to the enormous trouble to renounce his US citizenship. The taxation issue was a huge issue for him, only the dregs and scalliwags get the US citizenship benefits.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. J.Ross says: • Website

    When they passed the Fourteenth Amendment (over a veto and at a time of out-of-control activist legislating) they explicitly said this was to resolve the Recently Freed Negro Problem and would never be used to create anchor babies hauling in chain migrants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Stephen R. Diamond
    Who is "they"?
    , @sayless
    When they passed the Fourteenth Amendment they explicitly said

    they lied, and they usually do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. From the American point of view, this transfer of wealth from Russia simply provides a lot of investment in the area – and likely is responsible (if the journalists will see this as looking on the bright side), for the employment of thousands of Mexicans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nebulafox
    Much as Harvard really does not want more Chinese kids, New York Times columnists don't want more Russian immigrants. On a subliminal level, my intuition is that the reasons are strikingly similar-a mix of the emotionally pathetic and the practically venal. Not the Right Kind of Diversity, along with the fact that they are far more likely than Central Americans to drive up rents and place their children out of prestige schools, rather than serving as cheap labor that makes them feel fuzzy and enlightened.

    (I guess for the more spiteful types of well-to-do bien-pensants, you could also add that it is a way of further irritating the Deplorables-along with a lot of blacks and citizen Hispanics, I might add-who deal with the concrete negative consequences of having millions more low skilled laborers in an economy facing rapid automation, heavily strained budgets, and an already broken hiring system. And that's just the employment angle. But citater fra...)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. hackberry says:

    Do these wealthy birth tourists have any idea what FATCA is, or are they just happens not comply?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @J.Ross
    When they passed the Fourteenth Amendment (over a veto and at a time of out-of-control activist legislating) they explicitly said this was to resolve the Recently Freed Negro Problem and would never be used to create anchor babies hauling in chain migrants.

    Who is “they”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    Senator Jacob Howard, the major author and advocate for the bill, who sold it with speeches claiming it would exclude foreigners, and presumably a great many of the people who voted for it without objecting to the claims in Howard's speeches.
    This is a pattern: let me do X, I verbally promise I will not then do Y. Then once you get X you do Y and let the victim cry about his promises.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Um, aren’t all anchor babies dual citizens until they’re 18 and forced urged
    encouraged enticed suggested to choose?

    If the parents were from different countries, the child would have triple, not dual, citizenship. And if all four grandparents were from different countries…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. @Paul Rain
    Well, it could be a lot worse. This guy is an actual Russian Russian, isn't he? His wife certainly is.

    which is why the beast is outraged cant be having whites moving to america thats counter productive

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. @Anonymous
    I wonder how many adult anchor babies are paying their US taxes... We're one of the few countries that taxes foreign income. Somehow I suspect anchor babies today will be baffled by their tax liabilities tomorrow (and in all likelihood shirk them).

    I wonder how many adult anchor babies are paying their US taxes

    You assume they earn enough to reach the taxation threshold.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @Olorin
    Well, I knew a good number who voted for Reagan.

    And see how that worked out.

    Well, I knew a good number who voted for Reagan.

    And see how that worked out.

    Reagan’s mistake was taking the Party of the Workers at its word about enforcement.

    He should have known better– he spent forty years in that party.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wilkey
    "Reagan’s mistake was taking the Party of the Workers at its word about enforcement. He should have known better– he spent forty years in that party."

    And yet RINOs routinely cite Reagan as a reason to support amnesty.

    There are two ways to look at Reagan's support for the 1986 amnesty: either he was hoodwinked, or he knew it was a scam all along. If he was hoodwinked then I doubt he would repeat the mistake. If he was in on the scam then I frankly don't give a shit that he would support yet another amnesty.
    , @Maj. Kong
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=hcTPwHY-LpY

    Reagan did not make a "mistake", he was gung ho for globalism the whole time. The Hart-Cellar Act in 1965 was not "supposed" to cause mass immigration, and far fewer people were "supposed" to receive amnesty in 1986 than actually did.

    Reagan was no Hiram Johnson, that's for sure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Flip says:
    @james wilson
    I know a German who walked out of East Germany in 1946 to settle in West Germany. He took his wife to America to have their first child purely so that he would have the insurance of an anchor baby. Perilous times. He returns once a year for business but the family stuck in Germany.

    I know a woman whose (still living in her 90s) grandmother was part of an Austrian family which came to America and then went back to Europe. Her grandmother was the only one of the siblings born in America, so she came over during the Depression and somehow sponsored the rest of her family since they were all born in Austria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Escher
    See, its not just Mexicans and Chinese who do it. America was built on the backs on white anchor adults labor.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @YetAnotherAnon
    Russian Birth Tourists = Bad
    Chinese Birth Tourists = Good

    Mestizo Birth Tourists = Great

    So we know America was at maximum greatness prior to trump.

    Cuckoos and Cowbirds all.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. nebulafox says:
    @Dmitry134564
    From the American point of view, this transfer of wealth from Russia simply provides a lot of investment in the area - and likely is responsible (if the journalists will see this as looking on the bright side), for the employment of thousands of Mexicans.

    Much as Harvard really does not want more Chinese kids, New York Times columnists don’t want more Russian immigrants. On a subliminal level, my intuition is that the reasons are strikingly similar-a mix of the emotionally pathetic and the practically venal. Not the Right Kind of Diversity, along with the fact that they are far more likely than Central Americans to drive up rents and place their children out of prestige schools, rather than serving as cheap labor that makes them feel fuzzy and enlightened.

    (I guess for the more spiteful types of well-to-do bien-pensants, you could also add that it is a way of further irritating the Deplorables-along with a lot of blacks and citizen Hispanics, I might add-who deal with the concrete negative consequences of having millions more low skilled laborers in an economy facing rapid automation, heavily strained budgets, and an already broken hiring system. And that’s just the employment angle. But citater fra…)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The ethnic animus of NYT columnists against Russians cannot be overstated. One would hope for contrition following the Bolshevik bloodlust and oligarchic plunder, largely wrought by Jewish interests, but alas, self-same interests feel they own the country (or ought to).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Part One. Anchor Baby Argument, Mexican Case.

    The ruling part of the US Constitution is Amendment Fourteen: “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.”

    Here is the ruling part of the Mexican Constitution, Section II, Article Thirty:

    Article 30
    Mexican nationality is acquired by birth or by naturalization:
    A. Mexicans by birth are:
    I. Those born in the territory of the Republic, regardless of the nationality of
    their parents:
    II. Those born in a foreign country of Mexican parents; of a Mexican father and
    a foreign mother; or of a Mexican mother and an unknown father;
    III. Those born on Mexican vessels or airships, either war or merchant vessels. "

    A baby born to Mexican nationals within the United States is automatically a Mexican citizen. Under the anchor baby reasoning, this baby acquires US citizenship at the same time and so is a dual citizen. Mexican citizenship is primary because it stems from a primary source, the parents’ citizenship and the law of Mexico. The Mexican Constitution states the child of Mexican parents is automatically a Mexican citizen at birth no matter where the birth occurs. Since the child would be a Mexican citizen in any country, and becomes an American citizen only if born in America, it is clear that Mexico has the primary claim of citizenry on the child. This alone should be enough to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment jurisdiction thereof argument. Since Mexican citizenship is primary, it has primary jurisdiction; thus by the plain words of the Fourteenth such child is not an American citizen at birth.



    There is a second argument for primary Mexican citizenship in the case of anchor babies. Citizenship, whether Mexican or American, establishes rights and duties. Citizenship is a reciprocal relationship, thus establishing jurisdiction. This case for primary Mexican citizenship is supported by the fact that Mexico allows and encourages Mexicans resident in the US, either illegal aliens or legal residents, to vote in Mexican elections. They are counted as Mexican citizens abroad, even if dual citizens, and their government provides widespread consular services as well as voting access to Mexicans residing in the US. As far as Mexico is concerned, these persons are not Mexican in name only, but have a civil relationship strong enough to allow a political voice; in essence, full citizenship. Clearly, all this is the expression of typical reciprocal civic relationships expressed in legal citizenship, further supporting the establishment of jurisdiction.
    Part Two: Wong Kim Ark (1898) case. (Birthright Citizenship)
    The Wong Kim Ark (WKA) case is often cited as the essential legal reasoning and precedent for application of the fourteenth amendment as applied to aliens. There has been plenty of commentary on WKA, but the truly narrow application of the case is emphasized reviewing a concise statement of the question the case was meant to decide, written by Hon. Horace Gray, Justice for the majority in this decision.


    "[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.” (Italics added.)


    For WKA to justify birthright citizenship, the parents must have “…permanent domicile and residence...” But how can an illegal alien have permanent residence when the threat of deportation is constantly present? There is no statute of limitation for illegal presence in the US and the passage of time does not eliminate the legal remedy of deportation. This alone would seem to invalidate WKA as a support and precedent for illegal alien birthright citizenship.


    If illegal (or legal) alien parents are unemployed, unemployable, illegally employed, or if they get their living by illegal means, then they are not “. . .carrying on business. . .”, and so the children of indigent or criminal aliens may not be eligible for birthright citizenship

    If legal aliens meet the two tests provided in WKA, birthright citizenship applies. Clearly the WKA case addresses the specific situation of the children of legal aliens, and so is not an applicable precedent to justify birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens.


    Part three. Birth Tourism

    Occasionally foreign couples take a trip to the US during the last phase of the wife’s pregnancy so she can give birth in the US, thus conferring birthright citizenship on the child. This practice is called “birth tourism.” WKA provides two tests for birthright citizenship: permanent domicile and residence and doing business, and a temporary visit answers neither condition. WKA is therefore disqualified as justification for a “birth tourism” child to be granted birthright citizenship.

    Anchor Baby mom.

    Infantrator.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Stephen R. Diamond
    Who is "they"?

    Senator Jacob Howard, the major author and advocate for the bill, who sold it with speeches claiming it would exclude foreigners, and presumably a great many of the people who voted for it without objecting to the claims in Howard’s speeches.
    This is a pattern: let me do X, I verbally promise I will not then do Y. Then once you get X you do Y and let the victim cry about his promises.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Gunner says:

    If tens of thousands of white Christians were coming over the border, the NY Times would go back to being anti-immigrant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. TWS says:

    Anchor baby tourism? Oh my goodness! We’re going to have hundreds of children here born to parents with the wherewithal and foresight to pay thousands and plan months or even years ahead.

    Of course many of those kids directly compete against native California kids for college spots.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterike

    Oh my goodness! We’re going to have hundreds of children here born to parents with the wherewithal and foresight to pay thousands and plan months or even years ahead.

     

    It's way more than hundreds. And it's year after year after year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Wilkey says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Well, I knew a good number who voted for Reagan.

    And see how that worked out.
     
    Reagan's mistake was taking the Party of the Workers at its word about enforcement.

    He should have known better-- he spent forty years in that party.

    “Reagan’s mistake was taking the Party of the Workers at its word about enforcement. He should have known better– he spent forty years in that party.”

    And yet RINOs routinely cite Reagan as a reason to support amnesty.

    There are two ways to look at Reagan’s support for the 1986 amnesty: either he was hoodwinked, or he knew it was a scam all along. If he was hoodwinked then I doubt he would repeat the mistake. If he was in on the scam then I frankly don’t give a shit that he would support yet another amnesty.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    There are two ways to look at Reagan’s support for the 1986 amnesty: either he was hoodwinked, or he knew it was a scam all along. If he was hoodwinked then I doubt he would repeat the mistake. If he was in on the scam then I frankly don’t give a shit that he would support yet another amnesty.
     
    I am no Ronald Reagan, but I knew Ronald Reagan*, and I am sure it is the former. "Hoodwinked" is probably a good term, but I think of it as Mr. Reagan having too much trust in the US legislators who indeed did not keep their words. Per Allan Wall at VDare, Reagan regretted this move of his, as related by Ed Meese in a later interview.


    * not personally
    , @Reg Cæsar

    There are two ways to look at Reagan’s support for the 1986 amnesty: either he was hoodwinked, or he knew it was a scam all along.
     
    He gambled and lost. But he did actually express reservations about it at the time.

    If he was hoodwinked then I doubt he would repeat the mistake.
     
    What he said was that it could only work once, if at all. So those who look for him to support a future gift of legalization (not "amnesty"!) are implying that it didn't work the first time.

    This issue is reminiscent of two speed bumps he hit as governor. He signed a no-fault divorce law months after taking office; it was designed and backed by one of the major lawyers' groups. He later said that was the worst thing he ever signed.

    There was also the liberalization-- not legalization; the doctor still made the decision, not the woman-- of abortion. California basically scrapped the "Catholic" position of the old law for the "Protestant" position of the new one. His major influence on that bill (besides signing it) was to remove language allowing abortion for "fetal deformities". Still, he regretted it enough to write a whole book on the issue (originally an extended over-the-transom essay for Human Life Review).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. @YetAnotherAnon
    Russian Birth Tourists = Bad
    Chinese Birth Tourists = Good

    Yes, YAA, I believe the Chinese are the best-in-class at this birth tourism thing. I should say, the purposeful birth tourism, as they are indeed a savvy bunch. Were I to rectally extract some numbers, as is often the case, I would say the Chinese would be 3 orders of magnitude higher than the Russians at this scam. IOW, the Russians are a drop in the bucket compared to purposeful births of this type by the Chinese, and also compared to the sometimes purposeful ones by the illegal Latin Americans.

    Russian Birth Tourists = Bad
    Chinese Birth Tourists = Good

    Yes, gotta keep the Commies out. Wait, which ones are the Commies again?*
    .
    .
    .
    * Survey says: The real Commies are the bureaucratic Comrades in the American Feral Government who purposefully let this all happen.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. sayless says:
    @J.Ross
    When they passed the Fourteenth Amendment (over a veto and at a time of out-of-control activist legislating) they explicitly said this was to resolve the Recently Freed Negro Problem and would never be used to create anchor babies hauling in chain migrants.

    When they passed the Fourteenth Amendment they explicitly said

    they lied, and they usually do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. @Wilkey
    "Reagan’s mistake was taking the Party of the Workers at its word about enforcement. He should have known better– he spent forty years in that party."

    And yet RINOs routinely cite Reagan as a reason to support amnesty.

    There are two ways to look at Reagan's support for the 1986 amnesty: either he was hoodwinked, or he knew it was a scam all along. If he was hoodwinked then I doubt he would repeat the mistake. If he was in on the scam then I frankly don't give a shit that he would support yet another amnesty.

    There are two ways to look at Reagan’s support for the 1986 amnesty: either he was hoodwinked, or he knew it was a scam all along. If he was hoodwinked then I doubt he would repeat the mistake. If he was in on the scam then I frankly don’t give a shit that he would support yet another amnesty.

    I am no Ronald Reagan, but I knew Ronald Reagan*, and I am sure it is the former. “Hoodwinked” is probably a good term, but I think of it as Mr. Reagan having too much trust in the US legislators who indeed did not keep their words. Per Allan Wall at VDare, Reagan regretted this move of his, as related by Ed Meese in a later interview.

    * not personally

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    Reagan's wife was into astrology, and Reagan was (contrary to his later reputation) an early supporter of gay rights. Not to mention his long-standing support for gun control. For all intents and purposes, Reagan was just as much an enabler of degeneracy as Barry Goldwater was, but Conservatism Inc needs to maintain the personality cult.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. estimated hundreds of Russian parents

    Dear God! Hundreds??? Just imagine if we shared a border with them. There would probably be like 30 million of them here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. Escher says:
    @Flip
    I know a woman whose (still living in her 90s) grandmother was part of an Austrian family which came to America and then went back to Europe. Her grandmother was the only one of the siblings born in America, so she came over during the Depression and somehow sponsored the rest of her family since they were all born in Austria.

    See, its not just Mexicans and Chinese who do it. America was built on the backs on white anchor adults labor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Maj. Kong says:
    @Reg Cæsar

    Well, I knew a good number who voted for Reagan.

    And see how that worked out.
     
    Reagan's mistake was taking the Party of the Workers at its word about enforcement.

    He should have known better-- he spent forty years in that party.

    Reagan did not make a “mistake”, he was gung ho for globalism the whole time. The Hart-Cellar Act in 1965 was not “supposed” to cause mass immigration, and far fewer people were “supposed” to receive amnesty in 1986 than actually did.

    Reagan was no Hiram Johnson, that’s for sure.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Maj. Kong says:
    @Achmed E. Newman

    There are two ways to look at Reagan’s support for the 1986 amnesty: either he was hoodwinked, or he knew it was a scam all along. If he was hoodwinked then I doubt he would repeat the mistake. If he was in on the scam then I frankly don’t give a shit that he would support yet another amnesty.
     
    I am no Ronald Reagan, but I knew Ronald Reagan*, and I am sure it is the former. "Hoodwinked" is probably a good term, but I think of it as Mr. Reagan having too much trust in the US legislators who indeed did not keep their words. Per Allan Wall at VDare, Reagan regretted this move of his, as related by Ed Meese in a later interview.


    * not personally

    Reagan’s wife was into astrology, and Reagan was (contrary to his later reputation) an early supporter of gay rights. Not to mention his long-standing support for gun control. For all intents and purposes, Reagan was just as much an enabler of degeneracy as Barry Goldwater was, but Conservatism Inc needs to maintain the personality cult.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Mrs. Reagan's astrology hobby wasn't something I was too concerned about. Her "just say no" campaign, however, was something that didn't sit well with me, though I guess it was her turn at the usual 1st nanny lady scolding programs that must be somewhere in a section of the US Constitution that I have mis-perused.

    Anyway, the gun control campaign was really at its heyday in the early '80's. I can't remember all the details of President Reagan wrt guns. Gay rights? Maybe for his time, as in "let's not call them names", but things were not near the level of stupidity as they are now in this realm.

    To call Barry Goldwater and "enabler of degeneracy" is ludicrous. If he had won the presidential election in 1964 the US would have remained a better country for a lot longer. The only man I've seen in high-level American politics like him is Dr. Ron Paul.

    You can read Allan Wall on the '86 Amnesty. Reagan admitted it was a big mistake. He had not trusted the Soviet Russians - "trust but verify" means basically "don't trust em", but he trusted Americans in the US Legislature - bad freakin' move, Ronnie.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Longer you have this law. Interpreted this way it is. Good luck to all. But the interpretation can be should change. I do not believe the people who wrote this law mended IT to be interpreter this way

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. Twinkie says:

    “Dual citizenship” isn’t.

    For the life of me, I do not understand why the USG tolerates it. I bet the vast majority of Americans (including me, a naturalized citizen) supports disallowing dual citizenship.

    A man can only be loyal to ONE country and ONE country alone.

    When I became a citizen, I swore an Oath, which contains the following: “I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen…”

    That is pretty freakin’ clear. Yet the USG allows naturalized citizens and those born to foreigners to retain their original citizenship as well! It’s insane, as far as I am concerned.

    For that matter, why is there “birth citizenship”? Children born to foreigners should have foreign citizenship, period. Children born to tourist parents shouldn’t be American citizens, just because their parents “happened” to be here very temporarily. That obviously goes the same for those born to illegal aliens.

    The only partial exception I would make would be for children born to those with permanent residency in the U.S. – aka “green card” holders – but even in their cases, I’d rather the USG conferred on them like-status (permanent residency) with an option to naturalize, rather than citizenship from the get-go.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dave from Oz
    It's especially nuts to permit dual citizens to hold government jobs.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    Preachin' to the choir, Twinkie. Preachin' to the choir...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    American ‘birthright’ citizenship – currently the best deal available anywhere on this planet in terms of the massive dividend paying on the trivial ‘buying price’. I doubt that if you even accidentally dug an oil well in your backyard you would get such a bargain.

    The only mystery – apart from why it hasn’t been abolished – is just why have the teeming billions of the third world been so slow to exploit it.
    I mean, knowing the sheer cunning and exploitative character of the 1.5 billion strong subcontinental population, I’m just puzzled why there is not a whole massive industry back in India just dealing with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pericles

    I’m just puzzled why there is not a whole massive industry back in India just dealing with it.

     

    Please to be contact Pajeet Anchorbaby-Wallah.
    , @Numinous

    I’m just puzzled why there is not a whole massive industry back in India just dealing with it.
     
    Because India doesn't allow dual citizenship (just like the US shouldn't either, as another commenter mentioned.) Unless mommy and daddy want to give the baby up for adoption in the US, they'll have to take it back to India and give it Indian citizenship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Twinkie
    "Dual citizenship" isn't.

    For the life of me, I do not understand why the USG tolerates it. I bet the vast majority of Americans (including me, a naturalized citizen) supports disallowing dual citizenship.

    A man can only be loyal to ONE country and ONE country alone.

    When I became a citizen, I swore an Oath, which contains the following: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen..."

    That is pretty freakin' clear. Yet the USG allows naturalized citizens and those born to foreigners to retain their original citizenship as well! It's insane, as far as I am concerned.

    For that matter, why is there "birth citizenship"? Children born to foreigners should have foreign citizenship, period. Children born to tourist parents shouldn't be American citizens, just because their parents "happened" to be here very temporarily. That obviously goes the same for those born to illegal aliens.

    The only partial exception I would make would be for children born to those with permanent residency in the U.S. - aka "green card" holders - but even in their cases, I'd rather the USG conferred on them like-status (permanent residency) with an option to naturalize, rather than citizenship from the get-go.

    It’s especially nuts to permit dual citizens to hold government jobs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    America is both an empire and a country.

    Dual citizenship is seen as more feature than bug for the former.
    , @The Alarmist
    Yeah, but seems to be a bigger problem in the Australian government.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Dave from Oz
    It's especially nuts to permit dual citizens to hold government jobs.

    America is both an empire and a country.

    Dual citizenship is seen as more feature than bug for the former.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Pericles says:
    @Anonymous
    American 'birthright' citizenship - currently the best deal available anywhere on this planet in terms of the massive dividend paying on the trivial 'buying price'. I doubt that if you even accidentally dug an oil well in your backyard you would get such a bargain.

    The only mystery - apart from why it hasn't been abolished - is just why have the teeming billions of the third world been so slow to exploit it.
    I mean, knowing the sheer cunning and exploitative character of the 1.5 billion strong subcontinental population, I'm just puzzled why there is not a whole massive industry back in India just dealing with it.

    I’m just puzzled why there is not a whole massive industry back in India just dealing with it.

    Please to be contact Pajeet Anchorbaby-Wallah.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. LondonBob says:

    Russians have really become a metaphor for whites for the international left, perhaps this will influence Russians themselves into a more pro white position.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. LondonBob says:
    @Anonymous
    I wonder how many adult anchor babies are paying their US taxes... We're one of the few countries that taxes foreign income. Somehow I suspect anchor babies today will be baffled by their tax liabilities tomorrow (and in all likelihood shirk them).

    I know an extremely wealthy Indian from Africa, he was an anchor baby but he went to the enormous trouble to renounce his US citizenship. The taxation issue was a huge issue for him, only the dregs and scalliwags get the US citizenship benefits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Probably less about taxation per se and more about FATCA reporting requirements. Indians from Africa usually don't want their dealings exposed to the light of day.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @Dave from Oz
    It's especially nuts to permit dual citizens to hold government jobs.

    Yeah, but seems to be a bigger problem in the Australian government.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @LondonBob
    I know an extremely wealthy Indian from Africa, he was an anchor baby but he went to the enormous trouble to renounce his US citizenship. The taxation issue was a huge issue for him, only the dregs and scalliwags get the US citizenship benefits.

    Probably less about taxation per se and more about FATCA reporting requirements. Indians from Africa usually don’t want their dealings exposed to the light of day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Maj. Kong
    Reagan's wife was into astrology, and Reagan was (contrary to his later reputation) an early supporter of gay rights. Not to mention his long-standing support for gun control. For all intents and purposes, Reagan was just as much an enabler of degeneracy as Barry Goldwater was, but Conservatism Inc needs to maintain the personality cult.

    Mrs. Reagan’s astrology hobby wasn’t something I was too concerned about. Her “just say no” campaign, however, was something that didn’t sit well with me, though I guess it was her turn at the usual 1st nanny lady scolding programs that must be somewhere in a section of the US Constitution that I have mis-perused.

    Anyway, the gun control campaign was really at its heyday in the early ’80′s. I can’t remember all the details of President Reagan wrt guns. Gay rights? Maybe for his time, as in “let’s not call them names”, but things were not near the level of stupidity as they are now in this realm.

    To call Barry Goldwater and “enabler of degeneracy” is ludicrous. If he had won the presidential election in 1964 the US would have remained a better country for a lot longer. The only man I’ve seen in high-level American politics like him is Dr. Ron Paul.

    You can read Allan Wall on the ’86 Amnesty. Reagan admitted it was a big mistake. He had not trusted the Soviet Russians – “trust but verify” means basically “don’t trust em”, but he trusted Americans in the US Legislature – bad freakin’ move, Ronnie.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. peterike says:
    @TWS
    Anchor baby tourism? Oh my goodness! We're going to have hundreds of children here born to parents with the wherewithal and foresight to pay thousands and plan months or even years ahead.

    Of course many of those kids directly compete against native California kids for college spots.

    Oh my goodness! We’re going to have hundreds of children here born to parents with the wherewithal and foresight to pay thousands and plan months or even years ahead.

    It’s way more than hundreds. And it’s year after year after year.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Twinkie
    "Dual citizenship" isn't.

    For the life of me, I do not understand why the USG tolerates it. I bet the vast majority of Americans (including me, a naturalized citizen) supports disallowing dual citizenship.

    A man can only be loyal to ONE country and ONE country alone.

    When I became a citizen, I swore an Oath, which contains the following: "I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen..."

    That is pretty freakin' clear. Yet the USG allows naturalized citizens and those born to foreigners to retain their original citizenship as well! It's insane, as far as I am concerned.

    For that matter, why is there "birth citizenship"? Children born to foreigners should have foreign citizenship, period. Children born to tourist parents shouldn't be American citizens, just because their parents "happened" to be here very temporarily. That obviously goes the same for those born to illegal aliens.

    The only partial exception I would make would be for children born to those with permanent residency in the U.S. - aka "green card" holders - but even in their cases, I'd rather the USG conferred on them like-status (permanent residency) with an option to naturalize, rather than citizenship from the get-go.

    Preachin’ to the choir, Twinkie. Preachin’ to the choir…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Numinous says:
    @Anonymous
    American 'birthright' citizenship - currently the best deal available anywhere on this planet in terms of the massive dividend paying on the trivial 'buying price'. I doubt that if you even accidentally dug an oil well in your backyard you would get such a bargain.

    The only mystery - apart from why it hasn't been abolished - is just why have the teeming billions of the third world been so slow to exploit it.
    I mean, knowing the sheer cunning and exploitative character of the 1.5 billion strong subcontinental population, I'm just puzzled why there is not a whole massive industry back in India just dealing with it.

    I’m just puzzled why there is not a whole massive industry back in India just dealing with it.

    Because India doesn’t allow dual citizenship (just like the US shouldn’t either, as another commenter mentioned.) Unless mommy and daddy want to give the baby up for adoption in the US, they’ll have to take it back to India and give it Indian citizenship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @res
    Thank you for the explanation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. res says:
    @Numinous

    I’m just puzzled why there is not a whole massive industry back in India just dealing with it.
     
    Because India doesn't allow dual citizenship (just like the US shouldn't either, as another commenter mentioned.) Unless mommy and daddy want to give the baby up for adoption in the US, they'll have to take it back to India and give it Indian citizenship.

    Thank you for the explanation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. @Wilkey
    "Reagan’s mistake was taking the Party of the Workers at its word about enforcement. He should have known better– he spent forty years in that party."

    And yet RINOs routinely cite Reagan as a reason to support amnesty.

    There are two ways to look at Reagan's support for the 1986 amnesty: either he was hoodwinked, or he knew it was a scam all along. If he was hoodwinked then I doubt he would repeat the mistake. If he was in on the scam then I frankly don't give a shit that he would support yet another amnesty.

    There are two ways to look at Reagan’s support for the 1986 amnesty: either he was hoodwinked, or he knew it was a scam all along.

    He gambled and lost. But he did actually express reservations about it at the time.

    If he was hoodwinked then I doubt he would repeat the mistake.

    What he said was that it could only work once, if at all. So those who look for him to support a future gift of legalization (not “amnesty”!) are implying that it didn’t work the first time.

    This issue is reminiscent of two speed bumps he hit as governor. He signed a no-fault divorce law months after taking office; it was designed and backed by one of the major lawyers’ groups. He later said that was the worst thing he ever signed.

    There was also the liberalization– not legalization; the doctor still made the decision, not the woman– of abortion. California basically scrapped the “Catholic” position of the old law for the “Protestant” position of the new one. His major influence on that bill (besides signing it) was to remove language allowing abortion for “fetal deformities”. Still, he regretted it enough to write a whole book on the issue (originally an extended over-the-transom essay for Human Life Review).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Sentinen says:

    “In fact, children born to undocumented parents don’t help keep the parents in the country.”

    Links to this article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/the-myth-of-the-anchor-baby-deportation-defense/?utm_term=.bfa66de52559

    I’ve heard this argument before, that the idea of “anchor babies” is fallacious because it really doesn’t help illegal immigrants stay in the US at all. It’s absolutely true that technically, having a baby born in the US isn’t going to shield a parent from deportation- but it’s going to make it much harder. This article however disputes that altogether. I’m not familiar with the legal aspects and proceedings referred to, but things like this stand out to me:

    “This is the definition that has little legal underpinning. For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant.”

    Technically, this should be the case. On the other hand, we have atleast 11 million illegal immigrants. And we have seen, especially since Trump’s election, that there are an endless number of illegal immigrants who should have been known to law enforcement and should have been deported years ago, yet haven’t, or are hardened criminals and even get released, and politicians across the country and in both parties do the most shady, underhanded shit imaginable to protect illegal immigrants, give them benefits, flout federal immigration law etc. etc. etc.

    “Immigration courts routinely reject claims that an undocumented parent must remain in the United States to care for a U.S. citizen child. The main but rare legal exceptions are for children who are so seriously ill or profoundly disabled that one parent must care for them full-time, or for a child in need of medical care unavailable in their parents’ home country.”

    No citations- on the other hand, scores of illegal immigrants have given birth in this country and nothing has happened to them. I wonder if having a child has somehow shielded them?

    Also, in reference to DACA, there’s this gem:

    “And these programs did not exist when the concept of an “anchor baby” was politically popularized, so it becomes harder to accept the idea that having an “anchor baby” was the express goal of many people immigrating illegally.”

    I don’t really know what to say to this one- the concept of “anchor babies” and concerns relating to them have been around for a very long time. Or are they arguing about the term itself? They’d be wrong there too, since it’s been around since 1996 and supposedly got big in 2006. Or are they arguing that concerns over “anchor babies” hinged on the “political popularization” of the term? Or that few illegal immigrants intended to have “anchor babies” until just the past few years? Just an absurd, agonizingly retarded passage.

    And it ends off with this:

    “And if you’re still skeptical, here’s the real proof that having a baby in the United States does little to help an undocumented parent remain in the United States, there’s this:

    In 2011, there were at least 5,000 children in state custody or foster care because an undocumented parent or parents has been deported, according to a study released by the Applied Research Center, a New York-based think tank that focuses on racial and social justice issues. Some estimates put that figure even higher today. Immigration and Customs Enforcement sent mandatory reports to the Senate that among other things revealed that during 2013, the agency deported 72,410 people who told federal authorities they have one or more U.S. citizen children.”

    The first figure- 5,000 children- is nothing. The second is much more significant, but it says nothing of how long these people have even been here, among other things. And here’s what the article it cites says: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/25/parents-deportation_n_5531552.html

    “Children born in the U.S. are given automatic citizenship, regardless of their parents’ immigration status, and a 2013 report by Human Impact Partners estimated that 4.5 million U.S. citizen children have at least one parent who is undocumented. When a parent is deported, their U.S.-born children sometimes leave with them. But some stay in the U.S. with another parent or family member. Some children end up in U.S. foster care.”

    4.5 million children of illegals- 72,410 in comparison is also nothing. Tell us more how “anchor babies” don’t shield illegals from deportation though.

    The WaPo article touches upon something I’ve seen routinely with liberals for the past couple of years with illegal immigration- they’ll criticize conservative positions on illegal immigration and border security on the basis it’s wrong because what they’re actually arguing for is somehow in place, or is far less of an issue now.

    As if liberals are really actually for these positions or would have much of an issue if things were worse. Perhaps the best example is the idea Obama deported more illegals than Bush and Clinton, with the aim of highlighting how stupid Drumpf and conservatives are, when Obama is doing what they want already. The idea Obama would have been actually committed to this, or was in any way an immigration hardliner is insane. The definition of “deportations” expanded, and Obama deported fewer than previous presidents- this has been well publicized since early 2014: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-obama-deportations-20140402-story.html

    Nevermind how they’ll trot this argument out while still praising Obama and the dems. Even if it reveals a major point of contention with Obama, trying to get one over on DRUMPF and his supporters is all that matters.

    They’ve also done it with emphasizing how illegal immigration is less than it used to be, as if catching (note: catching, not counting the ones we didn’t catch) hundreds of thousands at the border per year is at all acceptable, or if there’s any reason to believe it would never get worse (Mexico does not have the human capital to be a first world country, for one), and that they’d actually care if it got to be as bad as the years when we were catching over a million per year (they won’t.)

    We’ll likely be seeing this same garbage even when (and if) illegal immigration is finally brought under control and the benefits become undeniable.

    The sentence I quoted in the beginning was followed by this:

    “That myth is perhaps most clearly illustrated in the recent case of an Oakland nurse, Maria Sanchez, who was deported last month despite having a career and three children who are U.S. citizens. Sanchez and her husband chose to take the youngest of their U.S.-born children with them to Mexico when they were deported.”

    “Last month”, aka 7 months into a Trump presidency. Somehow she was never deported under all the years she lived here with her family under Obama. But maybe Hillary would have finally done something!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. TERRIANDA says:

    so what ? what now because they are russian its a problem ? LOL TRUMP DIDNT MAKE THE LAW OBAMA DID . GUESS WHEN DACA IS STOPPED THEN THE PARTY IS OVER . IF NOT THE CHARADE GOES ON. THE USA HAS TURNED INTO A 3RD WORLD CESS POOL , IT WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE A DIFFERENT GROUP FOR A CHANGE .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @nebulafox
    Much as Harvard really does not want more Chinese kids, New York Times columnists don't want more Russian immigrants. On a subliminal level, my intuition is that the reasons are strikingly similar-a mix of the emotionally pathetic and the practically venal. Not the Right Kind of Diversity, along with the fact that they are far more likely than Central Americans to drive up rents and place their children out of prestige schools, rather than serving as cheap labor that makes them feel fuzzy and enlightened.

    (I guess for the more spiteful types of well-to-do bien-pensants, you could also add that it is a way of further irritating the Deplorables-along with a lot of blacks and citizen Hispanics, I might add-who deal with the concrete negative consequences of having millions more low skilled laborers in an economy facing rapid automation, heavily strained budgets, and an already broken hiring system. And that's just the employment angle. But citater fra...)

    The ethnic animus of NYT columnists against Russians cannot be overstated. One would hope for contrition following the Bolshevik bloodlust and oligarchic plunder, largely wrought by Jewish interests, but alas, self-same interests feel they own the country (or ought to).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation