Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 8/2/2005 7:10:23 AM EDT
What do you think?




Dear Congressman Brown,

I am writing in regard to what some people refer to as “anchor babies.” These are children of illegal immigrants who are born inside the United States. As I understand it, the baby is granted US citizenship for being born here, thus preventing deportation of the parents.

I recommend that the law pertaining to such citizenship be amended to apply only to the children of people who are in the country legally, in accordance with our immigration laws. The amendment should specifically exclude the children of people who are here in violation of the law.

I won’t use the euphemism “undocumented.” In violation of the law means illegal, and those who break the law are, by definition, criminals. We should close this loophole that gives illegals the “right” to stay here.

Illegal immigration is a massive, growing problem. Estimates vary, but it would be safe to say there are at least 15 million people in our country illegally, and some sources give a figure closer to 20 million. For comparison, according to the Census Bureau, the combined population of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee is about 18 million. Imagine for a moment that the number of people illegally in our country could populate these states!

The solution to illegal immigration will need to take many forms, from tightening our borders to enforcing existing laws. The legislative action recommended above would make it easier for our government to send these criminals back to where they came from.

In the end, this is about national sovereignty and national security. It’s not about racism, it’s about people sneaking into our country illegally.

Regards,

Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:12:21 AM EDT
Shit. Thought it was another Juliet Huddy post.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:14:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
Shit. Thought it was another Juliet Huddy post.



I saw that name somewhere else. One of these days I'll have to find out who she is.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:15:42 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
Shit. Thought it was another Juliet Huddy post.



I saw that name somewhere else. One of these days I'll have to find out who she is.

In a startling revalation, she's a good-looking woman on TV, as opposed to all those ugly women you see on TV all the time.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:15:42 AM EDT
Nice, but I bet you only get a canned-response, if anything.


No one in washington has the guts to clamp down on illegal immigration. No one.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:16:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
Shit. Thought it was another Juliet Huddy post.






Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:16:35 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
Shit. Thought it was another Juliet Huddy post.



I saw that name somewhere else. One of these days I'll have to find out who she is.

In a startling revalation, she's a good-looking woman on TV, as opposed to all those ugly women you see on TV all the time.



Maybe I've seen her, but don't recognize the name. I don't watch as much TV as I used to.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:25:42 AM EDT
The problem with denying citizenship to children born in the US is that it creates a class of stateless people. If someone is born in the US to the children of an illegal Ecuadoran immigrant, the child is NOT Ecuadoran by default. The parents have to register the child at the Ecuadoran embassy and wait for a passport. Since there isn't an Ecuadoran embassy or consulate in every city, this can be a problem. The catch here is that if the child is not an Ecuadoran citizen, the country of Ecuador doesn't have to let them in. So if Ecuador won't take him, what do you do with him?

I don't think the naturalization by birth process is the problem with our immigration system. We need to enforce our borders, push hard to punish companies that hire illegals, grant local law enforcement the power to arrest illegals, and aggressively deport anyone here illegally. If some illegals manage to stay because they are able to pop out a baby while they are here, that's the least of our problems.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:26:03 AM EDT
*cough*14thAmendment*cough*
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:28:24 AM EDT
mind if I steal that?
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:30:26 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pliftkl:
The problem with denying citizenship to children born in the US is that it creates a class of stateless people. If someone is born in the US to the children of an illegal Ecuadoran immigrant, the child is NOT Ecuadoran by default. The parents have to register the child at the Ecuadoran embassy and wait for a passport. Since there isn't an Ecuadoran embassy or consulate in every city, this can be a problem. The catch here is that if the child is not an Ecuadoran citizen, the country of Ecuador doesn't have to let them in. So if Ecuador won't take him, what do you do with him?
.



Sneak them to Ecuador illegally!
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:31:50 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
Shit. Thought it was another Juliet Huddy post.



HUge +1
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:42:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 7:46:56 AM EDT by op_rod]

Originally Posted By pliftkl:
The problem with denying citizenship to children born in the US is that it creates a class of stateless people. If someone is born in the US to the children of an illegal Ecuadoran immigrant, the child is NOT Ecuadoran by default. The parents have to register the child at the Ecuadoran embassy and wait for a passport. Since there isn't an Ecuadoran embassy or consulate in every city, this can be a problem. The catch here is that if the child is not an Ecuadoran citizen, the country of Ecuador doesn't have to let them in. So if Ecuador won't take him, what do you do with him?

I don't think the naturalization by birth process is the problem with our immigration system. We need to enforce our borders, push hard to punish companies that hire illegals, grant local law enforcement the power to arrest illegals, and aggressively deport anyone here illegally. If some illegals manage to stay because they are able to pop out a baby while they are here, that's the least of our problems.



Bullshit.

Every country in the world has ways to deal with this. In order to become an actual stateless person, you would have to be a citizen of a country that no longer exists and almost every country in the world with a functioning government goes by the standard UN boilerplate of handling citizenship of stateless persons.

In almost every other country on the world, the child of two non-resident aliens is considered to be a national of the parent's country (in many cases, of the father's country). I know lots of US nationals born to US parents abroad and all you have to do is get a SSN when you get back to the US and (starting in the 1970s) make sure that the kid has shots. That's it.

If your Ecuadoran nationals refused to report their child as a national of Ecuador, upon their return the Ecuadoran immigration authorities might be interested in whether or not the child was adopted (or purchased), but then again, if they two people said that they were their parents, there wouldn't be an issue. And yes, every government in the world will repatriate non-criminal minor children of their nationals, registered or not.

Every time you get a baby with US citizenship, they can move back when they are 18 and they can then bring over their family (the "family reunification" thing). Then, their cousins, and those people can bring over more people. So yes, it is a serious issue, and not "the least of our problems". People come to the US to have babies and return to their countries (Korea, Argentina, Nigeria, and now Brazil are famous for sending 8+ month pregnant women to the US to give birth, in most cases paying for it themselves, to make sure that their kid has a US passport) ALL THE TIME. This is COMMON. It is a huge issue.

One of the things that people are forgetting is that after the illegal alien amnesty in 1986 (remember -- the "last, one time, never again" amnesty?), each illegal legalized brought over at least 2.5 family members legally that we know of over the next ten years (more or less -- 9 and change years). OK, so let's assume that Bush pushes through his insane illegal alien amnesty and we get 20,000,000 legalized illegals. That means, in ten years, we would have at least 50,000,000 more people. And then you have a small baby boom. That is why this is important. Lots and lots of illegals are staying in the US legally because they have a US national citizens (their minor child) as their sponsor and the welfare of the minor child citizen is seen as more important than deportation, so the illegals stay. And get welfare, SSI, AFDC, and so on.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:47:30 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:
*cough*14thAmendment*cough*



Let's not forget the anti-abortion mantra that a human life begins at conception.

Therefore, anyone claiming to have conceived on US soil would fall under the 14th Am. and enjoy it's protection!

Ain't being Republican great?
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 7:50:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:
*cough*14thAmendment*cough*



The 14th Amendment was specifically worded that way to give rights to citizens, not non-citizens, which is what Indians were considered at the time. There was a ton of documented floor debate on this. Is was specifically written to not apply to non-citizens.

Wong Kim Ark is as good a decision as Miller.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 8:11:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By pliftkl:
The problem with denying citizenship to children born in the US is that it creates a class of stateless people. If someone is born in the US to the children of an illegal Ecuadoran immigrant, the child is NOT Ecuadoran by default. The parents have to register the child at the Ecuadoran embassy and wait for a passport. Since there isn't an Ecuadoran embassy or consulate in every city, this can be a problem. The catch here is that if the child is not an Ecuadoran citizen, the country of Ecuador doesn't have to let them in. So if Ecuador won't take him, what do you do with him?



The problem would be the result of actions taken by the law breaking parents.

Not my problem.

Link Posted: 8/2/2005 8:11:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By sharky30:
mind if I steal that?



Take it.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 8:42:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
Shit. Thought it was another Juliet Huddy post.



I saw that name somewhere else. One of these days I'll have to find out who she is.



she's a mere google away, my friend.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 8:46:41 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Fenian:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
Shit. Thought it was another Juliet Huddy post.



I saw that name somewhere else. One of these days I'll have to find out who she is.



she's a mere google away, my friend.



Googling For Girls.

Sounds like a gameshow on WB.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:24:14 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Fenian:

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:
Shit. Thought it was another Juliet Huddy post.



I saw that name somewhere else. One of these days I'll have to find out who she is.



she's a mere google away, my friend.




www.google.com/search?q=Juliet+Huddy
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:25:50 PM EDT
Anchor Babies away!!!



Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:26:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Brohawk:

Originally Posted By sharky30:
mind if I steal that?



Take it.



thanks
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:27:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 12:36:47 PM EDT by NimmerMehr]

Originally Posted By op_rod:

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:
*cough*14thAmendment*cough*



The 14th Amendment was specifically worded that way to give rights to citizens, not non-citizens, which is what Indians were considered at the time. There was a ton of documented floor debate on this. Is was specifically written to not apply to non-citizens.

Wong Kim Ark is as good a decision as Miller.



How does it stop 'anchor' babies?

It would be a slipery slope, and I wouldn't want to see it go that way, but can the US 'throw out' a US citizen? Like how one can be ex-communicated from the Catholic church?
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:32:56 PM EDT

I don't see a conflict between the citizen status of anyone born on US soil and the deportation of the parents. The kid goes with the parents, but the kid remains a US citizen.

Jim
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:38:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KS_Physicist:
I don't see a conflict between the citizen status of anyone born on US soil and the deportation of the parents. The kid goes with the parents, but the kid remains a US citizen.

Jim



Do elaborate, plz.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:38:14 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 12:42:30 PM EDT by Dolomite]

U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Originally Posted By op_rod:
The 14th Amendment was specifically worded that way to give rights to citizens, not non-citizens, which is what Indians were considered at the time.



Actually I thought that 'non- tax paying Indians' didn't count only when it came time to determine how many Representatives a State could send to Washington. States could have pushed around tribes to skew the numbers - where-as an actual private citizen (remember we're talking 1868 here) can't be forced to move.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:47:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By pliftkl:
The problem with denying citizenship to children born in the US is that it creates a class of stateless people. If someone is born in the US to the children of an illegal Ecuadoran immigrant, the child is NOT Ecuadoran by default. The parents have to register the child at the Ecuadoran embassy and wait for a passport. Since there isn't an Ecuadoran embassy or consulate in every city, this can be a problem. The catch here is that if the child is not an Ecuadoran citizen, the country of Ecuador doesn't have to let them in. So if Ecuador won't take him, what do you do with him?

I don't think the naturalization by birth process is the problem with our immigration system. We need to enforce our borders, push hard to punish companies that hire illegals, grant local law enforcement the power to arrest illegals, and aggressively deport anyone here illegally. If some illegals manage to stay because they are able to pop out a baby while they are here, that's the least of our problems.



check out the chart
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 12:49:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 1:08:44 PM EDT by Only_Hits_Count]
I believe that we are the only and last 1st world country that will grant citizenship to a baby dropped by an illegal alien. All other countries require at least one parent to be a legal citize.

Is that too much to ask???
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 1:00:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/2/2005 1:02:55 PM EDT by green-grizzly]

Amendment XIV:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."


Seems pretty clear. If they meant something different, they should have said something different.

If your parents are US citizens and you are born abroad, you are a US citizen under the principle of jus sanguinis. See 8 U.S.C. 1401.

-green
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 1:03:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Parrandero:
check out the chart

Social Contract Theory isn't worth the paper it's not printed on.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 2:15:28 PM EDT

Originally Posted By green-grizzly:

Amendment XIV:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."


Seems pretty clear. If they meant something different, they should have said something different.

If your parents are US citizens and you are born abroad, you are a US citizen under the principle of jus sanguinis. See 8 U.S.C. 1401.

-green



Actually, it's clear as mud because of this part: and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.

If the children are subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then we need to have social workers there to take the babies away from the criminals, and then deport the criminals, and put the children up for adoption.
Link Posted: 8/2/2005 3:27:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By KS_Physicist:
I don't see a conflict between the citizen status of anyone born on US soil and the deportation of the parents. The kid goes with the parents, but the kid remains a US citizen.

Jim



Do elaborate, plz.



I don't know that there's much elaboration necessary; The baby gets US citizenship, US passport, all that. Legal entry and exit from the country at will, eligible for the draft if implemented, etc.

The parents still have their parental rights (citizen or not), so there is no reason to take the child from them. You deport the parents, they can choose what to do with their baby. They can't abandon the baby, and the baby would need a legal guardian in the US if the parents aren't in the US, so the baby either goes with them or they find some relative or other person to take the baby in. Some people send a child to live with a relative or whatever--not our business. That's the parent's decision.

The citizenship of the baby in the home country (Mexico or wherever) is a problem for the parents to work out with their home country.

Jim
Top Top