Are Illegal Immigrants really looking for Work, Or just Easy Money?

  The Pilgrims from Great Britain and people of other nationalities from Europe and other parts of the world came to the area on the North American Continent, now known as the United States of America and Canada 400 years ago, and settled into a wilderness. They came here because were dissatisfied with the tyrannical government and forced religion in the places the left, and came to strive for the ability to be free and live their lives as they chose, and worship as they chose. They then cleared the forests and plowed the fields and planted crops to feed themselves and their families. They planted orchards and vineries to grow fruits and grapes for food and drink. They started raising herds of animals as beasts of burden and meat, and flocks of turkeys, chickens, and geese.

  They built Mills and Factories to process their food and make the tools and equipment they needed. They sought out the natural resources that were here and dug mines to get all the things this country had to offer. They built ships for fishing, commerce, and defense.

  When the jobs were more than one man and his family could handle, neighbor helped neighbor to clear the trees and use the lumber to build homes, barns, churches, schools, stores, and other buildings that were necessary for their town. And during that time both the USA and Canada have become prosperous Agricultural and Industrial countries. In some parts of the country people like the Amish in Pennsylvania still exist living that same way, neighbor helping neighbor for the betterment of all.

  At about the same time, some 400 years ago, the Spanish Conquistadors invaded the areas now known as Cuba, Central America, Mexico, and the Caribbean Islands; they were primarily looking for Gold and other treasures to bring back to Spain. I do not think their primary goal was to colonize these places, but just collect all the riches they could carry back to Spain by looting and plundering the people and cultures that inhabited those locations.

  I believe that same train of thought of “Do as little work as possible, but grab all the treasure” has endured and been carried down through their descendants. To clarify my position on that subject, let us look at the territories in question. The areas of the US and Canada are two of the greatest growers and producers of food products on the planet, but Mexico and Central America have a much longer growing season than we do, and do not have the 4 to 6 months when the ground is frozen and covered with snow. So why aren’t Mexico, Cuba, Honduras, Guatemala the rich agricultural powers they could and should be, selling food to their northern neighbors? Primarily there is no food product in those countries to harvest because no one took the time and effort to plant it.

  I have a serious doubt that the people who have deserted their native lands and homes in Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and so on to cross the border illegally and enter the United States as Illegal Immigrants really did it out of their desire to make a better life for themselves and their families. If that were their main goal they would have used the longer growing season and abundant natural resources their countries are blessed with to build a better life and help their native country to grow and prosper, rather than abandon their natural riches to lead a life of crime

  In my opinion they have decided to become criminals and they crossed the border into this country, and break laws to obtain illegal jobs because it is easier than clearing the land they live on and plant and harvest their own crops for their own needs, and be able to sell the surplus to others.  So rather than work the whole year as the land owner must, plowing the fields, planting the seeds, fertilizing, watering, and weeding the fields to allow the crops to grow a great harvest, the Illegals just have to show up at harvest time and work a few weeks and make as much money as possible working only as little as possible.

  My final question is that if these Illegal Immigrants are in fact the hard working, diligent, dedicated, industrious people that their supporters claim them to be, why is it that the countries they deserted to come here are so much lower in the standard of living, level of education, and wealth than the United States, only a few hundred miles away?

Posted by rj06042 at 12:53 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Lets have a Quiz!

  How will letting Latinos from Mexico, Central America and the
Caribbean Area affect the standard of living in the USA?
  
  Go through the list of countries named below and ask the following
questions about each, then decide if letting more Latinos into the
United States is really a good idea? Use the status of the general 
population of the country and not the vacationers. Keeping in mind 
that people from various parts of Europe settled in all these 
countries during the same time frame in the late 1500s and 1600s, 
so they all have had the same opportunities.

Country       Rich or Poor?    Standard of Living?   Primary Language?

USA
Canada 
Mexico 
Belize 
Guatemala 
Honduras 
San Salvador 
Costa Rica 
Nicaragua 
Panama 
Cuba 
Bermuda
Puerto Rico
Dominican Republic 
Haiti 
Jamaica 
Equator 
Chili 
Colombia
Guiana

  Questions anyone, did you notice any differences or similarities
about the primary inhabitants of each country and their  Standard of
 Living?

  So instead of raising the level of the Standard of Living for 
the Illegal Immigrants, it will lower the levelfor the USA. As 
they have proven from their activities,(Or lack of activities) 
in their own countries,that they are satisfied with their poverty, 
because they have done virtually nothing to change their situation 
in the last 400 years

I rest my case

Posted by rj06042 at 11:48 PM EDT

Updated: Saturday, 24 March 2007 1:50 PM EDT

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Kicking a Bee-Hive

  There are still a lot of people that do not understand why there is so much of a problem with our trying to fix Iraq.

  The only way I can try to relate to it is what would happen if we were to go up to a Beehive and Kick a hole in it. Then reach inside it and try to re-arrange it so it is the way it should be, as those bees have been doing it wrong for the last Million years or so.

  It is so difficult to get these bees to stop stinging us, and understand that we are only doing it for their own good, and if we have to we will kill them all so we can get the hive set up the way we think it should be, so be it.

  Let us face up to it, The Iraqi’s do not want us there, and they do not want our way of life. What we should be doing is showing them how we live, and let them decide if they want to live the way we do, and accomplish the change when they feel the time is right.

  Our present course is to invade and conquer and force our way of life down their throats, whether they like it or not.

  Smalltown America works quite well here in North America, but it does not fit in every location on this planet

  No matter how hard we try, we will never convince the Eskimos they should be living in Bamboo Huts, nor the Samoan’s to live in Igloos.

  Forcing your way of life on others has been tried throughout history. The Trojans tried it, the Greeks tried it, the Romans tried it, the Norsemen tried it, The Spaniards tried it, the Germans tried it, the Japanese tried it, and the Communist Russians tried, and every time it failed. And in most cases it led to the fall of the empire that was trying to force a change in lifestyle on a people who were not willing or ready to change.

  So to those of you that enjoy the American Way of Life, live it and cherish it for as long as it lasts, for if history follows it’s course, it will be gone within our lifetime.

 This message was originally written by me; Apr. 1 2004

Posted by rj06042 at 2:16 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

The reason I wrote this because of a conversation I heard on CNN between two Senators, Joseph Biden D of DE and Jon Kyl R of AZ, talking about how to pay for Hurricane Katrina. The question was asked if we should stop sending money to Iraq, and use that money to pay for Katrina, and both agreed that the mission in Iraq was too important. Republican Sen. Jon Kyl from AZ said we should pay for Katrina like many Municipal Projects, because the buildings and Highways will last as long as 70 years. So if we put it in long range Municipal Bonds then the people 70 years from now will still be using them, therefore should help pay for them.

  My question to Sen. Kyl is what about the next disaster? How many generations of the future shall we burden with expenses of projects that no one will remember, just so we can keep paying for a war that never should have happened in the first place?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

  I am sick and tired of listening to The Bush Administration and virtually all of the politicians of  both parties claiming that, “Maybe we shouldn’t have gone to war in Iraq, but as long as we are there we must stay till it’s over”.

  My feelings are that no matter how long we stay, no matter how many lives are needlessly lost, and no matter how much money we spend, as soon as we finally leave there will be a Military Coup and Iraq will become a Dictatorship again. That is the way the people of that part of the world are accustomed to living, and they will not change.

  History Tells Us So

Going back over a Century to the Spanish American War when The United States intervened and freed Cuba, Puerto Rico and The Philippine Islands from the domination of Spain, and Puerto and the Philippians became US Territories instead of Spanish Territories. We made Cuba a Free Democracy, even though the government was evil and stealing from the people, (Much like the Bush Administration). Until a Military Coup by Fidel Castro (supported by the US Government), overturned the government. Then Fidel Castro became Dictator and Cuba became a Communist Country and remains so till today.

  A good part of WWII was spent to protect the downtrodden country of China from being  captured by the Horrible Imperial Japanese, so they would be free from domination and become a free Democracy. But as soon as we left, China became a Communist Country.

  The other part of WWII was to free Poland and Czechoslovakia from the domination of Evil Germany, but as soon as the war was over we submitted  those countries into the domination of Evil USSR. And it took over 50 years and the downfall of the USSR before they were actually free.

  Then we were involved in a conflict (We weren’t supposed to call it a war) to keep Southern Korea from being absorbed by the Evil Communist Northern Korea, and unite both countries into one United Democracy. So after untold millions of dollars and thousands of young American and Korean lives, that one didn’t work either.

  Then of course there was the war to prevent the southern part of Viet Nam from being overtaken by the Evil Viet Cong from the northern part of Viet Nam and unite them into a United Democracy. But after fighting an un-winnable war for a Decade, with more millions of dollars and thousands more of young American and Vietnamese lives needlessly wasted, we slithered away, and it remained Communist.

  So I wonder why the Bush Administration and many politicians of both parties really think that Iraq is any different? Unless we stay there forever and make that country a territory of the United States, as soon as we leave, no matter how much money we send over there and how many lives are needlessly wasted, the people that live there will form the type of government they want.

  Look at Israel, a country that was formed 58 wears ago because everyone in the world believed it was the correct thing to do. The Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting about it ever since. Look at Ireland, a country that has not been at war with any other country since the Second World War, but they continue to fight among themselves.  Look at Sudan, Bosnia Herzegovina and other countries that have internal problems, and are fighting civil wars almost constantly. No person that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue can resolve that the world must live as peaceful Democracies, and have that resolution come to pass.

We should not have gone into a war with Iraq in the first place as Saddam Hussein and Iraq were not a threat to The United States because they had no Long Range Missiles, No Long Range Bombers, and no Navy to speak of,  so even if they did have any Weapons of Mass Destruction, they had no way they could have delivered them to the North American Continent. And of course we now know that there were no WMDs in the first place, and the intelligence that indicated that they existed at all was fabricated by the Bush Administration because George wanted to go to war. And we should not continue to be there trying to make it into a democracy. Because whatever we try to do, it will not happen.

   History Tells Us So.

  R. J. MacLachlan, Manchester, CT 

The main body of this letter was written in Nov. 4 2005

Posted by rj06042 at 1:05 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink

    I am tired of many of the so-called News Commentators or Pundits constantly implying, “Well he/she voted to go to war”. They usually give that comment to degrade the intelligence or the integrity of the person they are referring to, or imply that the person has no belief or conviction in what they say or have said in the past.

  I would like to point out to these so-called experts that the reason that most of the Senators and Congressmen or Congresswomen voted that way is because they were attempting to show the world that we Americans trust our leaders, and voted to demonstrate that trust.

  What they were voting on was the fact that they were led to believe, that by looking into the Secret Pentagon data that their positions allowed them access to, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice, all proclaimed that they had seen definite incontrovertible evidence that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction of Chemical, Biological and Nuclear Capabilities. Now since the Senators and Representatives do not have access to these Secret Pentagon Papers, they had to take the word of those people who do have access to them.

  And since Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice kept repeating these statements over and over, congress naturally had to believe they were true and accurate statements, so they cast their votes to give support to The Commander in Chief and stop the “Madman” Hussein, and not because they personally believed that going to war was a good idea, and so wouldn’t we all.

  When the war was in progress and no WMDs were found and facts were finally uncovered, we discover that there were no such Secret Pentagon Documents describing WMDs at all, and Bush Cheney, Rice , and Rumsfeld were all lying through their teeth, just to get the vote to go to war.

  So I would like to have all these High and Mighty News Pundits who are condemning the people who voted to support the Commander in Chief, take a lie detector test to show how they would have reacted at that particular time, rather than the Monday Morning Quarterbacking they are involved in now.

.

Posted by rj06042 at 12:41 PM EST

Updated: Wednesday, 28 February 2007 1:19 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

 English as Official Language for CONNECTICUT

   I grew up in the neighborhood surrounding the 6 rooms Apartment my family rented at 142 Eldridge St, in Manchester, Connecticut. This apartment was half of a 2 family 6/6 room Duplex, this rental  property was owned by a man named Rupert Bartley.

  Across the street was a family of a father, mother and twin girls named Guovinni, and just to the west of their property was the building operated by The Sub Alpine Club, also known as The Italian American Club.

  Also living in the neighborhood were families with the Surname including; Anderson, Muldoon, Enrico, Szemplinski, Welscopp. Lewitz. Firato, Dwyer, Bereea, England, Zacarro and so forth. There were a few businesses in the area including 3 small grocery stores Firato’s, England’s and Gremmo’s a Bakery known as Illuianno’s Bakery that also sold Pizza’s and an Italian sandwich of sliced meat, cheese, and vegetables in a long bread roll, known as a Grinder.

  But regardless of the nationality of the owner’s of the stores, they all did business using English as the language. So even though the neighborhood was of many nationalities, and inside their homes many languages were spoken, outside the homes, English was the language used.

  All of the people of the neighborhood accepted The United States of America as their country of choice, as it was their option to immigrate to these shores. And all of them understood that English was the language that was spoken here, so they all learned to speak the language, and read and write in the language of their adopted country, so they could do business and socialize with other immigrants from many other countries that lived here.

  None of them demanded that signs and labels be written in their native language, as they all knew that the learning the language of their adopted land of opportunity was a task that they must accomplish for themselves in order to succeed, and for their children to be educated in this country. If they had wanted signs and legal documents to be in their native language, they would have been in English, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Polish, Norwegian, Swedish, Greek, and Yiddish, but these people were proud and wanted with all their hearts to become part of this great country that they had adopted as their very own.

  The main reason that I feel Connecticut must declare English as the Official Language is that the idea of any group of a certain ethnicity might claim that all local and state  documents also be written in their particular language, to make it easier for the people of  their group to understand.

  But the problem with that is that there are many groups of different nationalities that might claim the same for their group. I know we have all eaten at Chinese Restaurants, Greek Restaurants, French Restaurants, and Italian Restaurants, but what if each of these groups wanted their language to be included in all state documents. Remember there are over 2500 dialects of the 12 Chinese Languages.

  The cost of printing the state documents in two, three, four, or even more languages would prohibitive. And if the immigrants of the last 200 years felt that by immigrating to the United States they should learn to speak the language of their adopted country, what makes the immigrants of today think they deserve anything different or any better?

  The states and territories of: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming, have already made English their official language and I think Connecticut should join them

  Making English the Official language of the State of Connecticut would resolve this situation and negate any of the particular groups from claiming it is their right and privilege to have any signs or documents printed in their language. And I believe it is the correct thing to do.

  R. J. MacLachlan, Manchester, CT       Jan. 26 2006

Posted by rj06042 at 1:26 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

Dear AARP

  I am writing this to ask you to investigate the ever-rising rate of Drug Prices. It appears to me that the Drug Companies are raising drug prices not because they have to, or because of higher production costs, but more because they can get away with it.

  I say this because I am a Senior Citizen and have some of the ailments that are prevalent among the elderly. And as long as Insurance Companies and Medicare are willing to pay for these medications, the Drug Barons are constantly increasing the prices that must be paid.

  One case in point is Xalatan, (Pronounced Zalatan, but it seems that the Drug Barons can’t spell either). This is a medication that is used as Eye drops to control the internal pressure in the Eyeballs caused by Glaucoma, an ailment suffered by many seniors.

  The cost of this medication on Feb 15 2001 was  $50.99 for a bottle containing 2.5 Milliliters. On Apr 30 2001 that same size container cost $54.99. And on Sept 19 2001 it was $55.99, and on June 10 2002 it went up to $58.99. That is about a 15.5% increase in a little more than a year. And as of Oct 24 2003 it is $69.99, which means it has increased about 38% in less than three years.

  Let us look a little deeper into the actual price of this precious elixir. The amount in the container is 2.5 ml (Milliliters), but the container is only half full. They give the reason for this is that it makes it easier to use it properly, but I believe that a container that would be sized hold 2.5 ml would be too small for many to grasp, as no other Eye Drop Medication comes in a half full dispenser. That leads me to wonder about the honesty and sincerity of the producer, right from the beginning.

  There are 29.57 Milliliters in one US Liquid Ounce, and as the 2.5 ml costs $69.99, One ml would cost $27.996. So one Ounce of this medication costs $827.84172. And as there are 128 ounces per gallon, one US Gallon of it would cost $105,963.74+. What Mystical Magical Ingredient is in this concoction that could justify this unearthly price? What research has been done during these past three years that can be attributed to justify the nearly 40% increase in the price of the identical product in exactly the identical container of 3 years ago.

  Or might it be that Pharmica & Upjohn has found out that they can get away with it? And the insurance companies just raise their premiums to cover their increased costs. Is it possible that there are other drug companies that are ballooning their prices as well? Is it possible that they figure that most Senior Citizens are senile and won’t notice the difference anyway?

  I think it is time to start investigating to find out why these prices are going up and up and up. Is it possible that there might be some fringe benefit packages around the boardroom, that can’t be covered any other way? 

     Sincerely,   R. J. MacLachlan,  Manchester, CT 

This letter was originally written November 18 2003

Posted by rj06042 at 3:38 PM EST

Updated: Thursday, 22 February 2007 4:01 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | View Comments (1) | Permalink

 Hiding the High Cost of Drugs, or Why the Republicans Need Medicare Part-D

 Did you ever wonder why the Republican Party passed the Bill to establish Medicare Part D? Was it to make things easier for Senior Citizens? Was it to establish a Federally Funded Entitlement for the General Public as they reach Old Age?

  Get real !

   The Republican Party does everything within its power to eliminate Federally Funded Entitlement Programs, as well as State, County, or Municipal Entitlements. The Republican Party does everything in its power to eliminate Federal Power and any kind of Giveaway Programs. So what’s the catch?

  The catch is that the Drug Prices are and were going up at such a rapid rate, to allow the Drug Companies to keep increasing their prices; they had to hide the obvious increases. How is that possible you ask? Develop a program where the people do not actually pay for the drugs any more. Develop a program where the people are forced into buying an Insurance Policy to pay for a percentage of the cost, and the individuals pay the rest and they call it a Co-Pay amount.

  Now the Prescription Manufactures can keep increasing their prices and the Insurance Companies will keep paying the increased cost and the Co-Pay will go up a small amount, and not too many people will complain. Then every few months the Insurance Company will have to increase the premium they charge t cover the high cost of doing business, and the Drug companies will be free to raise prices again.

  Of course much of the money will come from the millions of dollars that were set aside years ago in a program called Social Security, set up for the Senior Citizens to retire on, that the US Government has been dipping into for years. Kind of like Daddy breaking into his kid’s Piggy Banks, to get money to pay his Bar Bill. Keep in mind that Social Security never was a Federally Funded Program, but was a type of Insurance whose monies Employees and Employers contributed on a 50/50 basis, and the Government is and was supposed to be the Trustee of the fund. Soon the Social Security fund will be gone and the CEOs and Board of Directors of the Drug and Insurance companies will all be Billionaires.

  It is happening while we watch

Posted by rj06042 at 10:37 PM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

This is an article I came across on Netscape that I had to pass on. It so eloquently states my opinion of the Iraqi war.

Mac

    Published on Monday, January 8, 2007 by CommonDreams.org 

Cure For Yellow Ribbon Patriotism 

by Robert Weitzel

A man I once knew survived his tour of duty in Vietnam. In the privacy of a rented house trailer he drank alone until he finally had the “courage” to kill himself. I don’t know if he saw combat. He never said. I only assumed he had because when he spoke, what he said had the finality of a trigger pull. To my mind, there is only one way to acquire such certainty.

I only saw him on the weekends when he made beer runs for my high school buddies and me. We gave him a six-pack and ten minutes of our time for his trouble and then left him as we had found him, sitting at his kitchen table pulling on an unfiltered cigarette and sipping a lukewarm beer like he had all the time in the world.

I didn’t see him after high school and he was dead by the time I next thought to ask about him. I don’t know that he was a casualty of the war. He might have traveled the same road regardless of Vietnam. But then, he might not have.

Like most returning Vietnam vets before the release of the POW’s, he was not given a hero’s welcome. Hero was a term we seldom used back then; not like today when we toss it out like confetti on the deserving and the undeserving alike.

He came back instead to an indifferent, if not hostile, country. He and his fellow vets were slipped into the country singly or in small groups so as to diffuse throughout the population the “cure” they carried in their marrow, rendering it as ineffectual as a homeopathic dilution.

The “cure” these soldiers brought back from Vietnam was a potion distilled of moments: moments of bravery and sacrifice and sorrow, of bowel-loosening fear, of dehumanizing anger and hostility, of unasked and unanswered questions, moments too damaging to the soul to ever find release in confession.

It was a potion that if used thoughtfully could inoculate the nation against the disease of the god Mars. But it was ignored along with the soldiers. Vietnam vets, like the man I knew, were left to overdose on the potion in their own private hell.

The rally cry, “support our troops,” was born of a sincere desire to separate our feelings for the soldiers from our feelings for the war. It was meant as a mea culpa to the Vietnam veteran and a promise that we would never again make our soldiers the scapegoats for the machinations of the power elite. As a statement of concern for the wellbeing of the individual soldier, “support our troops” is unassailable.

But like the word hero, the vitality of the sentiment expressed by “support our troops” has been sapped by mindless iteration and the Machiavellian genius of warmongers. It has become little more than a patriotic platitude on par with, “God Bless America,” and a euphemism for “support our war.” As a balm to the national conscience for once again consigning our troops to the killing field, it is the battle cry that leads and sustains our country in an unjust war.

In a recent Military Times Poll, only 35 percent of our troops approved of the Bush administration’s handling of the Iraq war, while only 23 percent believed Congress was looking out for them. The troops are telling us they do not feel supported by the politicians who sent them to the killing field for a dose of the “cure.”

Against the advise of both retired and active duty military leaders, President Bush’s new strategy for winning the war in Iraq is expected to include a “surge” of 20,000 to 40,000 additional troops to help quell the sectarian violence unleashed by the illegal invasion and botched occupation of that country.

A November 2006 survey by WorldPublicOpinion.org revealed that 72 percent of Iraqi Shias believe the presence of U.S. occupation forces only exacerbates an already lethal situation and wants them out of their country within the year, while 91percent of Sunnis approve of attacks on U.S troops.

Our troops, our top military leaders, and the Iraqi people are sending a clear message. It is time to for the U.S. to “cut and run.”

Yellow ribbon patriots finally have an opportunity to support our troops in a meaningful way. They can begin by removing their magnetic yellow ribbon bumper stickers, by listening to the troops and helping to get them home, and by demanding that those who took the country to war with lies and deception be held to account.

All Americans will continue to abdicate their responsibility to the living and the dead and the wounded troops if they are unwilling to inoculate themselves with the “cure” brought home from the killing field.

Robert Weitzel is freelance writer whose essays regularly appear in The Capital Times in Madison, WI. He has also been published in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Skeptic Magazine, and Freethought Today. He can be contacted at: rweitz@tds.net

Posted by rj06042 at 11:17 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink

  I wish people would stop using the term Anchor Baby when referring to babies born to Illegal Immigrants from Mexico or any other country, while the parents are living illegally in the United States. These babies are in fact Mexican Citizens who happened to be born in this country. These children do have Dual Citizenship, and when these children reach maturity they have a choice of which country they will choose to be citizens of. But that has absolutely no bearing on the fact that their parents are still Mexican Citizens, unless they have been naturalized and have attained American Citizenship.

  My parents were from Canada, and six of my brothers and sisters were born in Canada. My parents moved to the United States when their children were all under the age of 14 years, then my sister Roberta and I were born in the United States. But that did not change the fact that my parents and six of their children were still Canadian Citizens. When I was about 12 years old my parents were naturalized and became American Citizens, and my six older siblings all had to be naturalized as well. Even though all six of them had gotten married to American Citizens that did not make them citizens of the United States automatically.

  When I was 20 years old I enlisted in the American Army, and as I was being sworn in, I had to denounce my allegiance to Canada and accept the United States as my country of choice and swear my allegiance to the Government of the United States.

  One of my stepsons was born in Japan while his American born natural father was serving in the US Air Force, and his American born mother was living in Japan, but that did not make him or his parents Japanese Citizens. He was born in Japan to American Parents, and when they returned to the United States, they did not have to leave him there, but brought him back as an American.

This is as it should be and not as some people are trying to claim of the Illegal Immigrants from Mexico must leave their American born children here as they are American Citizens and cannot go back to Mexico. That claim is a lie and always will be. The only way is that if one of the parents is a legal American Citizen, then the child born in this country is an American Citizen.

   To take that premise to the point of extreme, let us suppose that a pregnant woman was flying from her home in Iceland to visit friends in Australia. And as the plane was flying over the United States she gave birth to her baby, does that make her baby an American Citizen? Will the airplane have to land and let the American Citizen baby off, so its Icelandic Citizen mother can continue on her journey? Or if a pregnant woman was flying over Europe gave birth to triplets, one child over each of the countries of Spain, France, and Germany, would those three babies actually be citizens of those three different countries? Or if a child happened to be born at a time the mother was on a ship in International Waters, does this mean that the child has no citizenship at all?

Posted by rj06042 at 5:45 AM EST

Updated: Friday, 5 January 2007 11:28 AM EST

Share This Post

Post Comment | Permalink