The New York Times Labels 70% of All Americans "Hard-Liner Rightists" When It Comes to the Anchor Baby Issue (14th Amendment)

The New York Times thinks that the people reading this blog are unenlightened, racist,  bigoted, hard-line, right-wing devils. 


They sneer at any non-progressive fool who refuses to cheer on the impending demographic landslide that is about to make European-Americans a minority in the land their ancestors stole from the Stone-Ager indigenes. 


Now, this story is interesting: let us thank Allah that people have finally woken up to the insanity of the 14th amendment, the Civil-War era (1868)  provision of the Constitution designed to ensure that freed blacks were given full U.S. citizenship. 


The United States is among the last Western countries with "jus soli" (as opposed to "jus sanguinis") law still on the books. In most other Western nations sanity and common sense have prevailed and laws that once granted instant citizenship to anyone who squeezed out an anchor baby while passing through have been revoked, in the last decade, in the UK, France, Ireland, Finland and Canada, among others. 


In the US though, such lying propaganda mills as the NYT have created an aversion to the type of right-minded common sense thinking that questions the logic of allowing say Chinese women to board a jumbo jet in their 8th month of pregnancy so they can fly to and give burf to a little Chinaman in the ER of a San Francisco hospital, bestowing upon that foreigner baby, and literally from cradle to grave, the full privileges of US government welfare benefits, starting with the free (for them) cost of the hospital delivery, to the stroller it's wheeled out in, to the nursery school it's taught Spanish in, etc..  


The New York Times themselves have published several articles in the past few years on the growing "birth tourism" industry, and yet to this day America's newspaper of record remains steadfast in its approval of this most loathsome symbol of American liberal stupidity and anti-European identityism. 


Today, in an article entitled "Birthright Citizenship Looms as Next Immigration Battle," the jaded, angry, anti-Western, far-leftist morality crusaders at America's newspaper of record made it clear that their Population Replacement Agenda is here to stay, polls and prevailing mood among the public be damned (even the non-white public!). 


There is good news, however, Ladies and Gentlemen: in a sign of a heaven-sent change of heart among even the disingenuous white liberal readership of the Times, the comments section to this disgusting article is rife with the opinions of those who see the 14th amendment for what it really is: self-loathing liberalism run amok. 


A few examples- of both the for and against - proudly reprinted without permission below. 

Pregnant, Mexican, and Willing to Crawl Through the Desert
To Get That Gringo Passport: NYT-Approved  

New York Times readers respond to the sickening article "Birthright Citizenship Looms as Next Immigration Battle," by Times communist and reality fugitive Marc Lacey: 

The DWLs say : 
"Shouldn't it say, "she came to the land that was stolen from Mexico to find work?"


"How quickly we forget our own familial lineage. Aren't we all anchor babies?"


"Give me a break. This policy has been in place and drama-free for 140 years. All of a sudden now that there are too many brown people living here, people want to change the constitution?"


"It's about fear among white people that they are losing their majority status and will soon be simply the largest minority. It's about fear among English-speakers that Spanish may eventually get equal status as a language of business, TV, etc."


""Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" ...... as long as they are lily white
that is.................."


But those living in Reality Say:


"The NYTimes has a tiresome way of depicting as 'hardliners' anyone who dares to deviate from its liberal teachings. Various polls suggest that, put to the democratic (small 'd')vote, a very sizable proportion of the USA, perhaps even a majority, opposes automatic granting citizenship to babies born to persons who are in the country illegally."


"I remember one Sunday, while standing in the patio at Church (a church which feeds the homeless every weekday), a very young Mexican undoc called through the gate asking for money for diapers for her new baby. No job, no money, no food, no place to live, no diapers, but let's go the U.S. and have a new baby. I.Q. of 60-70, no doubt."


"Hard-liners? Try over 70 percent of Americans........"


"So she had her first child at 15 and has been producing them since and now the american tax payer is suppose to raise them and the new york times thinks that's just fine?"


"We can't even afford to take care of our own citizens, yet we encourage Mexico to dump its surplus population in the U.S." 


"Birthright citizenship is a disgrace. All illegals should be jailed and then deported, not rewarded with citzenship for their children. " 


"--- It's time for us to live in the 21st Century. Our country can no longer handle these illegals, and certainly not their children. By doing the right thing and making these children illegal along with their illegal parents, the incentive to come over here will be quashed. The Statue of Liberty's statement is no longer viable. DON'T bring your tired. DON'T bring your poor. DON'T bring your huddled masses, and for God's sakes DON'T bring your wretched refuse or tempest tossed homeless. "


Yes, we too were amazed that the NYT would allow the comments of so many "dissenters" to be published at all. 


The New York Times: really distorting the news since 1951.