Mexican Invasion
See other Mexican Invasion Articles
Title: Next Rand Paul Slam: Anchor Babies
Source:
REBELNEWS
URL Source: http://rebelnews.org/opinion/immigr ... t-rand-paul-slam-anchor-babies
Published: May 29, 2010
Author: Kurt Nimmo
Post Date: 2010-05-29 13:39:04 by HAPPY2BME-ONLF
Keywords: SB1070, RAND PAUL, ANCHOR BABY
Views: 2444
Comments: 12
In the wake of the “scandal” of Rand Paul’s unwavering support of property rights, the corporate media has fired another salvo from its trebuchet. Now it insinuates that Rand Paul is a racist because he is opposed to the government granting citizenship to anchor babies. “U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul is stirring it up again, this time by saying he opposes citizenship for children born in the U.S. to parents who are illegal immigrants,” reports the Associated Press. “Paul, who a week ago won the GOP primary, told a Russian TV station in a clip circulating on political Web sites Friday that he wants to block citizenship to those children.” Paul makes the comment at 9:43 in the video below. Often called “maternal tourism,” the anchor baby phenomenon is allowed under federal law. For illegal immigrants, having a child born in the U.S. becomes the Golden Ticket to staying in the country. Anchor babies become eligible to sponsor for legal immigration most of their relatives, including their illegal-alien mothers, when they turn 21 years of age, thus becoming the U.S. “anchor” for an extended immigrant family, notes Andy Selepak of Accuracy in Media. The Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimated in 2007 there were between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. These numbers are based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1,000) and official estimates of the size of the illegal alien population–between 8.7 and 11. Others put these numbers even higher, explains Selepak. When using the higher estimate of 20 million illegal immigrants and FAIR’s 33 births per 1,000, the higher estimate would roughly double FAIR’s figure to approximately 574,000 to 726,000 anchor babies born in the U.S. each year. “I’m not opposed to letting people come in and work and labor in our country,” Paul told Russia Today. “But I think what we should do is we shouldn’t provide an easy route to citizenship. A lot of this is about demographics. If you look at new immigrants from Mexico, they register three to one Democrat, so the Democratic Party is for easy citizenship and allowing them to vote. I think we need to address that.” The Associated Press attempted to get Paul to do a flip-flop on his comments. But his campaign chairman David Adams said Friday that Paul stands behind his statements. “Illegal immigration is a real problem in this country,” Adams said, “and if we can’t talk about this, what can we talk about?” It will be difficult for the establishment corporate media to use illegal immigration against Paul. University of Louisville political scientist Laurie Rhodebeck told the Associated Press Paul’s position is not a political liability in Kentucky where polls show people strongly disapprove of illegal immigration. “Clearly, people here seem to be even more in favor of tight control over immigration issues than folks nationwide,” Rhodebeck said. “So, if Paul wants, he could take the issue and run with it.”
Next Rand Paul Slam: Anchor Babies
The establishment media will attempt to portray Paul as a racist because he opposes illegal immigration.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#1. To: HAPPY2BME-ONLF (#0)
Of course Rand is right. Rand for Pres.
East Coast and West Coast liberals don't understand Paul's position is very popular in Kentucky. They have a rather myopic view of the country, to say the least. That said...uh, no, we currently have a freshman Senator playing POTUS. How's THAT working out?
We had a titular one and half term governor as POTUS for two terms. You voted for him 8 times. How'd that work out? He fell asleep at the switch. Blundered into another "war". Left the US virtually bankrupt. You're going to try to nominate a person who wasn't capable of completing one term as governor of a State that requires practically no governance at the state level. So now, here you are passing judgment on an executive who is a year and a half into a term who is trying to fix 8 years of total mismanagement that you helped enable. Why don't you shut the fuck up for awhile before you start questioning how YOUR stinky diaper is going to be changed.
There are no replies to Comment # 10. End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#9. To: A K A Stone (#1)
#10. To: Boofer (#9)
Replies to Comment # 10.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]