Thread: Should the INS Act of 1965 be changed to end anchor baby births?
View Single Post
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-27-2008, 12:01 AM
saltwn's Avatar
saltwn saltwn is offline
Moderator
  
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: small town in the Northwest- population 400 (+2)
Posts: 5,002
Thanks: 2,378
Thanked 1,413 Times in 983 Posts
Send a message via Yahoo to saltwn
Default Re: Should the INS Act of 1965 be changed to end anchor baby births?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dga View Post
If the New York Times is pro-illegal, then we're in serious trouble, If at 21 you can still call a US citizen a baby, then that seems contradictory. And the amendment (according to the proposal) will include all citizens? Otherwise it would be discriminatory. If it is all inclusive, then you would be denying naturalized citizens the "benefit" of petitioning their parents and siblings which would be stupid - no offense.
Duh...yes the New York times is...how shall I say it delicately?
Biased/left-leaning/Petraeus hating/pro-illegal. And yes we are in serious trouble.
Other than that one statement, I won't argue your remarks here. I will post my thoughts on the thread.
Last edited by saltwn; 05-27-2008 at 12:02 AM. Reason: no editing-boo-boo
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post: