Anti-Anchor Baby Law

[CanOWorms]

Are you saying that anchor babies aren't a problem then? Because if so, most would disagree.

I don't see how the birth of an American is a problem. It seems like it should be a happy event.

Even if you consider it to be a problem, there is no civilized remedy.

 

[Infohawk]

I don't see how the birth of an American is a problem. It seems like it should be a happy event.

Even if you consider it to be a problem, there is no civilized remedy.

Nothing uncivilized about deportation.

 

[CanOWorms]

Nothing uncivilized about deportation.

It depends on the situation. Deporting a refugee would be uncivilized.

Deporting an American citizen is certainly horrendous. And quasi-deporting an American citizen by deporting his or her illegal immigrant parents is also horrendous.

 

[nageov3t]

The Europeanization of America continues. If you are born in this country, you are American. Plain and simple. It is part of the foundation of this country. European-like beliefs on citizenship should be rejected by any modern society. There should be no further test for someone born here.

In addition, an American born to illegal immigrants should also have the right to be raised by those parents in America. No American should be quasi-deported.

do you think the founding fathers envisioned the perfect storm combination of the welfare state combined with anchor babies?

I guess I don't see why we should reward people for breaking the law and encouraging dangerous behavior.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I don't see how the birth of an American is a problem. It seems like it should be a happy event.

Even if you consider it to be a problem, there is no civilized remedy.

The true remedy is to seal the borders and enforce immigration laws so things like that aren't an issue. Would you agree with that?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Deporting an American citizen is certainly horrendous. And quasi-deporting an American citizen by deporting his or her illegal immigrant parents is also horrendous.

What we're saying is that illegals are taking advantage of this law to give themselves a way to stay here. Do you think that is right?

 

[Pneumothorax]

I asked this in another thread, but no one answered it: Would you guys support a "pathway to citizenship" (amnesty) IF as a compromise a new Constitutional Amendment repealing Title 1 of the 14th (Eliminating Anchor Babies) & that there will be NO MORE amnesty's in the future?

1. This allows us to deport at will any future illegals as all their progeny will also be illegal and will deported with the parents - no crying over "splitting families"

2. Illegals won't be trying to run over the border as they know that unless there is a another amendment to the constitution, they'll never get amnesty and all their children will also be illegals.

 

[nageov3t]

I asked this in another thread, but no one answered it: Would you guys support a "pathway to citizenship" (amnesty) IF as a compromise a new Constitutional Amendment repealing Title 1 of the 14th (Eliminating Anchor Babies) & that there will be NO MORE amnesty's in the future?

1. This allows us to deport at will any future illegals as all their progeny will also be illegal and will deported with the parents - no crying over "splitting families"

2. Illegals won't be trying to run over the border as they know that unless there is a another amendment to the constitution, they'll never get amnesty and all their children will also be illegals.

weren't we told after the last amnesty that there should be NO MORE amnesty's in the future?

 

[ProfJohn]

I don't see how the birth of an American is a problem. It seems like it should be a happy event.

Even if you consider it to be a problem, there is no civilized remedy.

If an illegal snuck into your house at night and delivered a baby and claimed that child was your baby because it was born in your house and because of the baby she got to live in your house too would that be a problem?

 

[CanOWorms]

do you think the founding fathers envisioned the perfect storm combination of the welfare state combined with anchor babies?

I guess I don't see why we should reward people for breaking the law and encouraging dangerous behavior.

The Founding Fathers didn't envision a lot of things.

You see it as rewarding the parents. I see it as giving the standard and acceptable rights of an American to an American. You are trying to punish an American citizen because of his or her parents.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I asked this in another thread, but no one answered it: Would you guys support a "pathway to citizenship" (amnesty) IF as a compromise a new Constitutional Amendment repealing Title 1 of the 14th (Eliminating Anchor Babies) & that there will be NO MORE amnesty's in the future?

1. This allows us to deport at will any future illegals as all their progeny will also be illegal and will deported with the parents - no crying over "splitting families"

2. Illegals won't be trying to run over the border as they know that unless there is a another amendment to the constitution, they'll never get amnesty and all their children will also be illegals.

I personally wouldn't support amnesty in any way, shape, or form unless the borders are adequately sealed/patrolled/enforced.

 

[CanOWorms]

The true remedy is to seal the borders and enforce immigration laws so things like that aren't an issue. Would you agree with that?

Sure. I'm not arguing in favor of illegal immigration.

I am arguing against the desire of those wishing to limit citizenship to a class of people who normally would be citizens in a modern society.

I am also arguing that an American child should be raised by his or her parents in America regardless of their citizenship status.

 

[CanOWorms]

What we're saying is that illegals are taking advantage of this law to give themselves a way to stay here. Do you think that is right?

Yes, I think it is right. An American child should have the right to be raised by his or her parents in the United States.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Yeah, I don't think this will get by the Supreme Court, but I do think we should look at revising the Constitution so that one parent must be a citizen in order to confer citizenship on a baby.

Agreed as well, HR1868 (the bill referenced in the article) seems a very sensible approach to the matter of amending the constitution on this matter though.

 

[CanOWorms]

If an illegal snuck into your house at night and delivered a baby and claimed that child was your baby because it was born in your house and because of the baby she got to live in your house too would that be a problem?

A country is not a house.

 

[Pneumothorax]

weren't we told after the last amnesty that there should be NO MORE amnesty's in the future?

What I meant to say that the new Constitutional Amendment would also contain a clause stating that Amnesty's would never happen again.
I also want much better enforcement of the north/south borders.


Honestly, I'm with you guys with deporting all the "line-jumpers" (My parents waited over 15 years to come here legally). But unfortunately with about half of the country now Liberal, we won't be able to kick out all 12 million+ of them.

 

[Infohawk]

Deport the parents. The kid can stay with legal relatives if they exist or come back when he/she is an adult.

 

[Patranus]

Try taking a trip to Germany (legally or illegally) and see if they extend citizenship to your child

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Yes, I think it is right. An American child should have the right to be raised by his or her parents in the United States.

People are abusing that privilege though, and by eliminating that right, one of the (presumably) major enticements in coming here illegally would be gone. Do you understand that viewpoint?

 

[Carmen813]

I keep hearing this argument, but I'd like to see some specifics if you have them because I just don't understand which part of the Constitution would prohibit asking for ID when you've been stopped for another violation.

I think you are I are discussing two different things.
This law (the one the OP is about, and which I was referring to in the quote you chose ) violates the 14th amendment. The other may violate the 5th amendment. Potentially the 9th amendment as well. I've read it, it's on shaking ground at best.

I would like to see some information about how many of these babies are actually born in the U.S. each year anyway. Issues like this have a tendency to be blown out of proportion.

 

[Carmen813]

People are abusing that privilege though, and by eliminating that right, one of the (presumably) major enticements in coming here illegally would be gone. Do you understand that viewpoint?

You understand that eliminating this right for them would also eliminate this right for your own children. Would you like to give the state or feds the ability to arbitrarily decide who is a citizen and who is not?

People abuse rights all the time. Hell, the media is full of liars, should we eliminate the first amendment? That doesn't mean we should start stripping them away, that's the quick road to tyranny.

Here is a clue: the problem here is not the people, it is a government who has (for over 2 decades) failed to address our border vulnerabilities. Both Republicans and Democrats, liberals and conservatives, are to blame.

 

[Patranus]

You understand that eliminating this right for them would also eliminate this right for your own children. Would you like to give the state or feds the ability to arbitrarily decide who is a citizen and who is not?

People abuse rights all the time. That doesn't mean you should start stripping them away, that's the quick road to tyranny.

How does requiring someone to legally be in the country give the government the ability to "arbitrarily" decide who is a citizen or not?

Look at every other country on the planet. The USA has by far one of the most liberal citizenship policies.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

You understand that eliminating this right for them would also eliminate this right for your own children. Would you like to give the state or feds the ability to arbitrarily decide who is a citizen and who is not?

No, it would not. We're discussing modifying the 14th to eliminate the anchor baby provision and replace it with something along the lines of either "one parent must be a citizen" or "the parents must be in the US legally."

People abuse rights all the time. Hell, the media is full of liars, should we eliminate the first amendment? That doesn't mean we should start stripping them away, that's the quick road to tyranny.

You could make that argument on many things, which is why I mentioned the slippery slope argument with regards to health care earlier. Many of us mentioning the slippery slope argument then were branded "alarmists."

You don't just say "Well, people will abuse it anyway, so why bother enforcing it?"

 

[Carmen813]

How does requiring someone to legally be in the country give the government the ability to "arbitrarily" decide who is a citizen or not?

Look at every other country on the planet. The USA has by far one of the most liberal citizenship policies.

I'm not talking about the parents, I'm talking about their child. And under current U.S. law, if you are born in the U.S., regardless of where your parents are from, you are a U.S. citizen. This also extends to being born on a military base or U.S. embassy, as they are technically U.S. soil.

I find it ironic that you are suggesting we change our laws based on what everyone else is doing...if this is fair logic, than can we have single payer now please?

No, it would not. We're discussing modifying the 14th to eliminate the anchor baby provision and replace it with something along the lines of either "one parent must be a citizen" or "the parents must be in the US legally."

The 14th amendment doesn't have an anchor baby provision. It establishes the foundation for how EVERYONE becomes a citizen, whether it was the child of an illegal immigrant, you, or me.

I would need to see language, but I'm not inclined to support a Constitutional amendment that would address a relatively minor problem. As I said (and I believe you agree with me to an extent), the problem is not the people taking advantage of this law. That is merely the effect of a government that fails to properly secure it's borders. Changing the Constitution is a lengthy process, and if it were successful it would not remove the problem of people being here illegally. All it would do is punish a person who would otherwise be a U.S. citizen due to the actions of their parents.

 

[CanOWorms]

People are abusing that privilege though, and by eliminating that right, one of the (presumably) major enticements in coming here illegally would be gone. Do you understand that viewpoint?

Yes, I understand that viewpoint. But it fails to acknowledge that eliminating a right of a potential American child is what they are advocating. It punishes an American because of their parents.