MoveOn demands Paul Ryan apologize for truth

Anchor babies are a fact of life in the world of illegal immigration. Birthright Citizenship is the costly, automatic granting of citizenship to children born within a nation’s borders or territories. The United States and Canada are the world’s only industrialized nations still offering such an extravagant gift to both tourists and illegal aliens.

Under current practice, these children are U.S. citizens at birth, simply because they were born on American soil. They are called “anchor babies” because, as U.S. citizens, they 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 their extended  foreign family.

Such births have even forged an industry aside from the children born to foreign national parents illegally residing in the United States. As an example, Dr. Jose Duran, a gynecologist and obstetrician and his colleague, Dr. Marco Saucedo, both Nogales, AZ physicians have an unusual way of bringing in business.  The two doctors advertise their services on flashing digital billboards south of the border which read: “Do you want to have your baby in the United States?” They refer to the practice as “a tradition.”

For years, Tucson Medical Center’s “birth package” has actively recruited such business, encouraging what amounts to the purchase of U.S. citizenship.

Seeing Red AZ has written about what is called “Birth Tourism” with pregnant clients arriving from China and Middle Eastern nations.

In August 2010, we wrote that the issue of birthright citizenship — an incorrect interpretation of the 14th Amendment — was getting another look by the most unlikely of people. Arizona’s own amnesty architects, Sens. John McCain and (now retired) Jon Kyl, along with Sen. Lindsey Gramnesty (R-SC) each said they intended to revisit the issue, and would look at the advisability of a constitutional amendment that would repeal the citizenship provisions. The amendment was adopted in 1868 after the Civil War. Its intent was to allow American-born children of freed African-born slaves to have all of the rights and privileges of citizenship. It was necessary then, but has no relevancy today.

We hope you weren’t holding your breath waiting for such actions from the amnesty loving senators.

With this as background, why would the far-left extremists at be waging a war, complete with a petition drive, against U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, demanding that he apologize for using an “offensive anti-immigrant slur”– anchor babies — while discussing immigration reform.  In Racine, Wisconsin, a group of liberal Wisconsinites gathered at Monument Square to demand Ryan apologize.  As this video shows, these charming and well-informed folks have targeted him before.

Sorry. Anchor babies live and breathe.  They are a fact of life. Apologies are not in order.


40 Responses to MoveOn demands Paul Ryan apologize for truth

  1. Republican Voter says:

    Lots here I was unfamiliar with. Thanks for another fact filled post. We need to wake up and smell the coffee while we still have a chance. McCain and Kyl along with McCain’s toady Lindsey Graham are intent on giving America to the Democrats. Now Jeff Flake (Kyl’s unsavory replacement) is part and parcel of the deception. Please join me in calling and emailing opposition to this amnesty scheme that is gaining more traction each and every day. Our future is at stake! Do it first thing Monday morning!!

  2. eubykdisop says:

    On the other hand, don’t think for one minute that Ryan is a “conservative” hero on immigration issues. He even teamed up with Chicago Democrat Luis Gutierrez to go on the road to PROMOTE “immigration reform”:

    “Paul Ryan Gets Marco Rubio’s Back On Immigration”

    “Benjy Sarlin, April 25, 2013”

    “On Monday, Ryan joined Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), one of the lawmakers working on a bipartisan House immigration bill, for a series of joint events in Chicago promoting reform.”

    “We need it for national security reasons. We need it for the economy,” Ryan said. “We do not want to have a society where we have different classes of people who cannot reach their American dream by not being a full citizen.”

    “Gutierrez, a longtime progressive proponent of revamping immigration laws, noted at one of their events that Ryan wasn’t a “Johnny come lately” and had worked on the issue throughout the last decade. In a previous interview, Gutierrez said that Ryan had told him during his vice presidential run that he planned on returning to a comprehensive reform bill after the election, win or lose — even as running mate Mitt Romney took a hardline position on the trail.”

    My personal subjective opinion is that Gutierrez organized the protests against Ryan to help Ryan by making him appear to be “conservative” and an opponent of Liberal Democrats like Gutierrez on immigration issues.

    • eubykdisop says:

      P. S. For those who may not know, Luis Gutierrez was the co-author, along with Jeff Flake, of the STRIVE Act of 2007 illegal alien amnesty legislation. Gutierrez also travelled all the way from Chicago to Phoenix to speak at rallies here opposing SB 1070.

      • CD 9 says:

        And the same people who complained about it in 2007 still voted for that betrayer of American’s in 2012. I am talking about McFlakey in case the low information voter can’t figure that out. I screamed about the strive act and his so-called energy exchange bill, (cap and trade) but he still squeaked out a win. The only way to stop this is next year is to get out some more Democrats out in this state, but we need the Losertarians to quit running candidates they know can not win, well that is any of them. The Losertarians refuse to work with the Republican’s so they actually help the Democrats, I guess that is where the low information really starts.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Let us not forget that AG Horne recently argued a case before SCOTUS seeking to preserve an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to vote. Why do you think a suit was filed against that law and it ended up in court? We may never know how many of those who voted for Flake were even actually eligible to vote.

      • Seeing Red AZ says:

        Seeing Red AZ has exposed the Jeff Flake / Luis Gutierrez alliance on the STRIVE Act and other joint pro-illegal ventures numerous times. This is just one you might want to look at:
        Gutierrez even thanked Flake for helping him “turn more red states blue” in this article titled, “The Numbers Are On Our Side” in the leftist publication, Progress Illinois. You can read it here:
        And still the sheeple voted him to the senate over respectable and conservative businessman Wil Cardon. Club for Growth was in the tank for Flake and ran distortions and outright lies regarding Cardon. In the end, the uninformed and apathetic voters are to blame.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Then, there’s this SRAZ article:

        “AZ AG Horne argues Voting Rights Act to SCOTUS”

        “Protecting the integrity of elections”

        “As a review: In 2004, Arizona voters passed — by an overwhelming vote of 1,041,741 – 830,467 – the Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act, on the ballot as Proposition 200 — a commonsense measure intended to prevent non-citizens from illegally voting in elections.”

        “Sandra O’Connor — the left-of-center “cowgirl from Arizona,” who duped conservative Ronald Reagan in 1981 when he appointed her to the U.S. Supreme Court — sat on the Ninth Circuit panel that gutted the law.”

        So we don’t know if Flake was propelled over the top to victory by “uninformed and apathetic voters” or by illegal aliens who were not even eligible to vote. How can we know? The proof of citizenship provision of the law was struck down by the Ninth Circuit.

    • Westnash says:

      Gutierrez is bad news and if his alliance w/ Flake is lasting, it should be exposed. There is no greater apologist for all things concerning illegal immigration than LG. I would guess that his views are much to the left of most legal immigrants. Flake should be asked about this in communications and in Town Halls.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Right you are, Westnash! The bottom line is that Flake doesn’t care what his constituents think. As members of Congress have often told us, it is not their duty to represent the views of the majority of their constituents. Their only obligation, once elected, is to vote their conscience. The only problem is that people like Flake don’t have a conscience, LOL! ;-)

  3. Westnash says:

    Major stories about how this has become an industry for Asians in California. It is only common sense that no child born of a non citizen on a trip to USA should be given citizenship. American citizenship is a precious thing that our politicians give away too freely. The issue should go before the Supreme Court to see if current policy is even legal.

  4. eubykdisop says:

    Watch as Chicago Democrat Luis Gutierrez introduces Paul Ryan, and the two even fondly embrace, as Ryan pitches “immigration reform”.

    Paul Ryan: Immigration Reform Needed to Restore the American Idea

    • Arizona Conservative Guy says:

      Most of us know Ryan’s an open borders/amnesty guy. But when he deviates in his language, the left still beats him to a pulp. Wish they would do that with Jeff McFlake and his mentor Johnny Mac.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Thank you for speaking for SRAZ readers and informing me that most of them know that Ryan is an open borders/amnesty guy. It’s convenient to have a spokesperson.

        Ryan’s district is described this way:

        “A swing district, it was carried by George W. Bush in 2004 with 53% of the vote but the district voted for Barack Obama over John McCain in 2008, 51.40-47.45%.”

        “The 1st consistently backs conservative Rep. Paul D. Ryan but is split rather evenly between the parties.”

        The district is said to be 52% R and 48% D.

        “His House constituents returned him to Congress. They also voted narrowly for the Mitt Romney-Ryan ticket. But his congressional victory margin was his smallest ever (11.5 points).
        He lost his hometown of Janesville twice: by 10 points for Congress and by 25 points for vice president.”

        So Ryan’s district in on the razor’s edge. If he is backing “immigration reform” then it would be in his political interests to be “attacked” by Democrats on some aspect of the immigration issue to enhance the way he is perceived by Republican constituents.

        As regards Gutierrez, he is the Chair of the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus. Do you REALLY think that would be “attacking” Ryan unless Gutierrez approved it? And since Gutierrez and Ryan are good buddies, do you think that Gutierrez would want to “hurt” Ryan?

    • Maggie says:

      This makes me gag!!!!!! Was Paul Ryan the best we could come up with for VP?

      • eubykdisop says:

        Bingo! You asked the ten million dollar question, Maggie!

        There are plenty of good, solid, across the board Conservative Republicans but the “system” weeds them out as candidates. In addition, the money is backing the “New World Order” types because it’s the really big money which will benefit from the NWO!

    • Justin says:

      What exactly do you get out of the sarcasm you fling around? Give us a break. AZ Conservative Guy was simply making a comment. He didn’t appear to be placing himself in the role of “spokesman” for anyone. Lighten up, pal.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Gee, sounds like you’re very “concerned”, as in “concern troll”, LOL!

        I doubt very much that Arizona Conservative Guy hired you to be his blog bodyguard AND he’s quite capable of speaking for himself!

        What I find fascinating is that out of all the issues, both in the article and raised in the comments, the ONLY thing you found to comment on little old me. Gee, isn’t that revealing, LOL!

        Have a nice day “concern troll”! :-)

      • eubykdisop says:

        Oh yeah, Justin, and since all trolls are seeking attention, I’ll give some attention, LOL! Here, you can read about yourself:

        “Concern Troll”

        “A person who lurks, then posts, on a site or blog, expressing concern for policies, comments, attitudes of others on the site.”

        I hope you feel better now that you’ve gotten some much-craved attention rather than just lurking around all by your lonesome! ;-)

      • Westnash says:

        Euby was finally punished last week after basically ruining this site by his constant attacks on posters and attempts to fill the board with his cut n paste. He has responded to the thrashing by sarcastic praise for others. He has seen himself as spokesman for SRAZ and arbitrator for all things conservative, neither of which was true in the minds of others.

      • eubykdisop says:

        100% correct, Westnash, As always, you are right. Thank you very much!

      • eubykdisop says:

        Oh, Westnash, one small point. SRAZ said that it was putting BOTH of us on moderation. So, were you “punished” too or was it only me?

      • eubykdisop says:

        Am I wrong, Westnash?

        “Seeing Red AZ says:
        May 9, 2013 at 10:38 am
        As of 10:45 am today, eubykdisop’s comments will join yours — and a number of others — in the moderation column.”

        I could be wrong but it seems to me that we were both “punished”. Did I miss something? Please correct me if I’m wrong.

    • Night Owl says:

      eubykdisop: I’m neither Justin, AZ Conservative Guy OR a “troll.” I merely join the others in asking that you lighten up. There is much you write that is highly informative. The insults and petulant remarks take away from your contributions.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Don’t like what I write or the way I write it, don’t read it. Very simple! ;-)

    • Maggie says:

      It’s impossible to miss your comments. I come here to read conservative posts and intelligent, on-topic dialogue regarding them. I don’t look for agreement. The snide comments and sarcasm are unnecessary and impossible to avoid, as you suggest we do.

      Since today is Mother’s Day, honor a concept your mother most likely taught you: Good manners.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Oh, I see, so my comments are “impossible to avoid”. In other words, it’s not your fault for not complying with what SRAZ has asked of us, it’s my fault that you are not compliant with what SRAZ has asked of us! My comments jump out and force you to your keyboard against your will, LOL!

        “Seeing Red AZ says:
        May 9, 2013 at 10:38 am
        Comments should be limited to the post at hand.”

        What very Liberal thinking! You didn’t sit at your keyboard and consciously choose to make an off topic comment about me, I forced you to sit at the keyboard and make an off topic comment against the express wishes of SRAZ. This is the old Liberal idea that it is the victim of a crime who is at fault, LOL! Nothing quite like taking responsibility for your actions!

        Further, I find it just fascinating how you somehow missed this comment by Westnash:

        “Westnash says:
        May 12, 2013 at 4:43 am
        Euby was finally punished last week after basically ruining this site by his constant attacks on posters and attempts to fill the board with his cut n paste. He has responded to the thrashing by sarcastic praise for others. He has seen himself as spokesman for SRAZ and arbitrator for all things conservative, neither of which was true in the minds of others.”

        Funny how you didn’t find the comment by Westnash “impossible to avoid”! Apparently that is a perfectly fine “on topic” comment in line with the wishes of SRAZ that “comments should be limited to the post at hand”. What amazing selective vision you have, LOL!

      • eubykdisop says:

        Oh, too funny for words, LOL!

        The person minding the store at SRAZ today has chosen to have a “one sided” discussion by blocking my earlier response to this comment by Maggie, LOL!

        Hey, that’s Conservative, ROFL! Nothing like shutting down free speech, LOL! Let’s just hear one side, shall we?

        You’re revealing your true colors SRAZ! In addition, you failed to address your own policy statement that, “Comments should be limited to the post at hand.” Inconsistent much?

        Readers can’t see this because you’re blocking my posts but I know that you can see it!

        Have a nice day, SRAZ store minder!

      • Westnash says:

        Exactly, Maggie. Agree 100%.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Well, Westnash, do you think that you could agree with SRAZ as well?

        “Seeing Red AZ says:
        May 9, 2013 at 10:38 am
        Comments should be limited to the post at hand.”

    • Seeing Red AZ says:

      When comments are “held in moderation,” that does not mean they will never be posted. Most are.
      We have lives that preclude us from watching each and every comment and acting on it immediately as it comes in. Many commenters here have their comments similarly held. Accusing us of “shutting down free speech” is absurd.

      Today is a holiday. We will be with the Mothers we hold near and dear. Don’t expect instant action.

      • eubykdisop says:

        Right, no instant action. The only thing is that my comments stopped being held in moderation… and then started being held in moderation again. Make up your mind!

        As regards responding to your stated policy that, “Comments should be limited to the post at hand”, I can wait for a response to that. No hurry.

        Have a nice Mother’s Day! My mother passed away long ago but I remember her and all of her sweet kindnesses on this day.

  5. CD 9 says:

    The left loves Flakey and Mac, please tell me what Republican’s are more like Democrats then those two?

    • eubykdisop says:

      Well, exactly how much like a Democrat does a Republican need to be?

      Ryan, in promoting “immigration reform” said: “We do not want to have a society where we have different classes of people who cannot reach their American dream by not being a full citizen.”

      So Ryan is talking about being a “full citizen”.

      In addition, Ryan recently came out in support of child adoption by homosexuals.

      Is that getting to be “Democrat” enough for you?

  6. eubykdisop says:

    Well, we have had three posters in this thread who want to talk about me rather than the topic. If that’s what you would rather talk about, that’s fine with me, if that’s what SRAZ would like this thread to be about.

    What do you think, SRAZ, should we discuss eubykdisop instead of Paul Ryan and immigration issues? Should we have a lively back and forth about me, what I post and how I post?

    I’ll be happy to post in response all day but I want to make sure that that’s where SRAZ wants this thread to go. If it is where you want this thread to go than let’s not hear any complaints about long posts and off topic debate.

    So, what’s it going to be, SRAZ? It’s your blog. Step up to the plate!

  7. eubykdisop says:

    “Westnash says:
    May 12, 2013 at 4:43 am
    Euby was finally punished last week after basically ruining this site by his constant attacks on posters and attempts to fill the board with his cut n paste. He has responded to the thrashing by sarcastic praise for others. He has seen himself as spokesman for SRAZ and arbitrator for all things conservative, neither of which was true in the minds of others.”

    Well, that’s very interesting, Westnash, but…

    “Seeing Red AZ says:
    May 9, 2013 at 10:38 am
    Comments should be limited to the post at hand.”

    I could be wrong, Westnash, but it doesn’t appear to me that your comment is “limited to the post at hand”. Do you think that your comment is limited to the post at hand? Am I wrong? Do you feel that your comment complies with what SRAZ has asked us to do? I’m open to hearing your thoughts on the subject, Westnash.

  8. eubykdisop says:

    SRAZ, by it’s own statement, has made it clear that it wants comments “limited to the post at hand”. That applies universally to everyone. It doesn’t apply to some but not to others. A universally applied principle is fair to everyone so there shouldn’t be any complaints about it.

  9. Westnash says:

    It is important that Ryan be called out on his immigration stance if it is as described here. I thought Ryan was an ok technocrat but have never been enthralled by his ability to cut the government’s wasteful spending.

    • eubykdisop says:

      Well, you can see him and hear him speaking in the video I posted so there shouldn’t be any question regarding what his stance is on immigration. You can hear it right from the horse’s mouth!