Re: why birtherism might not matter, even if it's true ...
"Karl Swenson" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, 22 Apr 2011, Karl Swenson wrote: > Uh no, if he needs to be born on US soil *and* have a US parent, his > birth certificate becomes essential to the claim. Gah, you're right. Don't know what I was thinking. > However the US citizen parent is a non starter. Any child born on US > soil is an American citizen. That's the crux of the whole anchor baby > debate. Well, yeah. But would the anchor babies be considered "natural-born" citizens in the sense that the Constitution specifies here? ***yes, near as I can tell. It may not be a natural born citizen by the intent of the constitution, but it is in fact one. BTW, speaking of anchor babies, Steve Sailer recently posted an English translation of a brochure produced by a company called Chinese Baby Care, which explains all the reasons why women might want to travel to the United States just to give birth there: **one of the local hospitals deals with this a lot, but from Russia, not China. Women planning 'vacations' while 9 months pregnant.... -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot