Very rarely would I have any agreement with Phyllis Schlafly. After all, she campaigned against the Equal Rights Amendment; stated that "maritial rape" was not possible because by getting married, the woman had consented to sex and you could not call it rape; and even complained that Richard Nixon was too liberal on social issues, such as desegregating the South.

However, in today's Daily Sun (The Happy Times Gazette), Schlafly did write an article on "anchor babies" that was very good. The idea - and practice - of illegal immigrants coming to America to have a baby so the child can have US citizenship and benefits is just plain wrong. I discussed this with my wife, Mrs. Tbugs, and she agreed that someone illegally coming to the US just for the purpose of having a baby on American soil should not have the baby be a US citizen automatically. She then said if an illegal was in the US for a long time and had a baby, that was a different story and that baby should be a US citizen. I totally disagree. Illegal is illegal - it means "the person is breaking the law". At least one parent, in my opinion - and Schafly's opinion - must be a US citizen.

By the way, the picture of Phyllis Schlafly in the Daily Sun is way out of date. She is 86 years old.

As I proposed in another topic, I have a solution.

The baby can stay. The mother or both parents are here illegally and must be deported.

The parent(s) can take the baby back to their native country. When the child becomes an adult at age 18 or 21 or whatever the local laws are, they can come to this country as a citizen - our Constitution grants him/her that by nature of him/her being born here.

The parent(s) can leave the baby in the United States where it'll be putup for adoption as there are a LOT of families out there who want babies.

"Family" is a very tight concept in Hispanic circles - as I've discovered when I found out I *am* Hispanic (was adopted and found my family when I was almost 30). You tell someone that they'll lose their kid or have to bring it back to their home country and you'll have a LOT of people thinking twice about crossing the border.

Originally Posted by Tbugs

Very rarely would I have any agreement with Phyllis Schlafly. After all, she campaigned against the Equal Rights Amendment; stated that "maritial rape" was not possible because by getting married, the woman had consented to sex and you could not call it rape; and even complained that Richard Nixon was too liberal on social issues, such as desegregating the South.

However, in today's Daily Sun (The Happy Times Gazette), Schlafly did write an article on "anchor babies" that was very good. The idea - and practice - of illegal immigrants coming to America to have a baby so the child can have US citizenship and benefits is just plain wrong. I discussed this with my wife, Mrs. Tbugs, and she agreed that someone illegally coming to the US just for the purpose of having a baby on American soil should not have the baby be a US citizen automatically. She then said if an illegal was in the US for a long time and had a baby, that was a different story and that baby should be a US citizen. I totally disagree. Illegal is illegal - it means "the person is breaking the law". At least one parent, in my opinion - and Schafly's opinion - must be a US citizen.

By the way, the picture of Phyllis Schlafly in the Daily Sun is way out of date. She is 86 years old.

I must be getting old because for once I agree with you .

Jurek:
Perhaps you didn't mean getting old. Maybe getting wise.

Wow, someone actually agrees with me! Am I getting conservative? Or just wise (on some issues)? Maybe I finally drank the Kool-Aid.