{BS} Movement afoot to drop "anchor babies"
in [Toyota]
|
From: Hachiroku ハチロク on 31 Jul 2010 16:23 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:37:18 -0700, Wayne wrote: > > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:i2vu6k$43o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> "Wayne" <mygarbagecan(a)verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:i2vr8n$pne$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>> news:N7K4o.46425$f_3.10714(a)newsfe17.iad... >>>> If you're here illegally, and whelp a pup, it's an American Citizen. >>>> >>>> I guess with all of the latest negative press and pressure from >>>> Conservative, Lindsey Graham thinks he's figured out a nice bone to >>>> throw for appeasement. Now, all of a sudden, he's very irritated by all >>>> of these anchor babies born here in America and he says: >>>> >>> <snip> >>> Dumbassed idea. And an even dumber idea is that an American born child >>> of illegal aliens somehow confers anchor status on the parents. If the >>> parents get into a deportable situation....deport them and they are free >>> to take the child with them. >>> >> >> The problem is, the baby is an anchor that lets the parents remain. Hence >> the term, anchor baby. >> >> If you had a clue, you'd know of the 14th Amendment that gives citizenship >> to anybody born on US soil. > - > And if you had a clue, you would see that I didn't disagree with your > position on birthright citizenship. The problem, as you stated is the > "anchor" status. There is absolutely no reason that a US citizen child of > illegals should have a bearing on the parents immigration status. Deporting > the parents does not mean that the child is deported. The parents might > decide to take the child with them...or not. In order to become a "Legal Immigrant" or apply for citizenship, you have to have a Sponsor who is a US citizen. The laws are a lot more lenient when the "Sponsor" is a minor child.
From: RD Sandman on 31 Jul 2010 16:31 "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:i320i1$6df$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > > "Wayne" <mygarbagecan(a)verizon.net> wrote in message > news:i31fve$2vh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:i2vu6k$43o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>> "Wayne" <mygarbagecan(a)verizon.net> wrote in message >>> news:i2vr8n$pne$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> >>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>> news:N7K4o.46425$f_3.10714(a)newsfe17.iad... >>>>> If you're here illegally, and whelp a pup, it's an American >>>>> Citizen. >>>>> >>>>> I guess with all of the latest negative press and pressure from >>>>> Conservative, Lindsey Graham thinks he's figured out a nice bone >>>>> to throw for appeasement. Now, all of a sudden, he's very >>>>> irritated by all of these anchor babies born here in America and >>>>> he says: >>>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> Dumbassed idea. And an even dumber idea is that an American born >>>> child of illegal aliens somehow confers anchor status on the >>>> parents. If the parents get into a deportable situation....deport >>>> them and they are free to take the child with them. >>>> >>> >>> The problem is, the baby is an anchor that lets the parents remain. >>> Hence the term, anchor baby. >>> >>> If you had a clue, you'd know of the 14th Amendment that gives >>> citizenship to anybody born on US soil. >> - >> And if you had a clue, you would see that I didn't disagree with your >> position on birthright citizenship. The problem, as you stated is >> the "anchor" status. There is absolutely no reason that a US citizen >> child of illegals should have a bearing on the parents immigration >> status. Deporting the parents does not mean that the child is >> deported. The parents might decide to take the child with them...or >> not. >> > > Let's walk that through. > > If your mother is an illegal immigrant, and she crawled under the wire > to squirt you out, and then was deported WHILE YOU (a minor child) > WERE ALLOWED TO REMAIN, who would care for you? Me? > > Your mother would not be deported if it meant that you remained as a > ward of the state. You would be deported to, which means you would be > expelled or exiled. I can't think of any instance where such a move on > the part of the government has ever taken place. But, assume for a > moment that it could happen ... What would keep the government from > simply expelling or exiling any other CITIZEN that it felt doesn't > deserve to be here? > > The government cannot, or will not, send an American citizen (minor > child, to boot) packing, and will instead allow an alien parent to > receive resident alien status for no other reason than to care for the > minor child. That is an attraction of the anchor baby clause of 14 -- > come here and have a baby, then seek resident alien status through the > relationship with the child. Siblings can also get resident alien > status from the same anchor baby. It can be, and is, used as a method to bypass the normal channels for citizenship which are clogged and need to remodeled to improve them. -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) The three stages of our economy....... Recession - You neighbor loses his job... Depression - You lose your job... Recovery - Obama loses his....
From: RD Sandman on 31 Jul 2010 16:32 =?iso-2022-jp?q?Hachiroku_=1B$B%O%A%m%=2F=1B=28B?= <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in news:4c5486a3$0$74748$afc38c87(a)read01.usenet4all.se: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 08:37:18 -0700, Wayne wrote: > >> >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >> news:i2vu6k$43o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>> "Wayne" <mygarbagecan(a)verizon.net> wrote in message >>> news:i2vr8n$pne$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> >>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>> news:N7K4o.46425$f_3.10714(a)newsfe17.iad... >>>>> If you're here illegally, and whelp a pup, it's an American >>>>> Citizen. >>>>> >>>>> I guess with all of the latest negative press and pressure from >>>>> Conservative, Lindsey Graham thinks he's figured out a nice bone >>>>> to throw for appeasement. Now, all of a sudden, he's very >>>>> irritated by all of these anchor babies born here in America and >>>>> he says: >>>>> >>>> <snip> >>>> Dumbassed idea. And an even dumber idea is that an American born >>>> child of illegal aliens somehow confers anchor status on the >>>> parents. If the parents get into a deportable situation....deport >>>> them and they are free to take the child with them. >>>> >>> >>> The problem is, the baby is an anchor that lets the parents remain. >>> Hence the term, anchor baby. >>> >>> If you had a clue, you'd know of the 14th Amendment that gives >>> citizenship to anybody born on US soil. >> - >> And if you had a clue, you would see that I didn't disagree with your >> position on birthright citizenship. The problem, as you stated is >> the "anchor" status. There is absolutely no reason that a US citizen >> child of illegals should have a bearing on the parents immigration >> status. Deporting the parents does not mean that the child is >> deported. The parents might decide to take the child with them...or >> not. > > In order to become a "Legal Immigrant" or apply for citizenship, you > have to have a Sponsor who is a US citizen. The laws are a lot more > lenient when the "Sponsor" is a minor child. Yes. -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) The three stages of our economy....... Recession - You neighbor loses his job... Depression - You lose your job... Recovery - Obama loses his....
From: Jeff Strickland on 31 Jul 2010 17:32 "RD Sandman" <rdsandman(a)comcast[remove].net> wrote in message news:Xns9DC689ACBFC86hopewell(a)216.196.97.130... > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in > news:i320i1$6df$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > >> >> "Wayne" <mygarbagecan(a)verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:i31fve$2vh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>> >>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>> news:i2vu6k$43o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> >>>> "Wayne" <mygarbagecan(a)verizon.net> wrote in message >>>> news:i2vr8n$pne$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> >>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>> news:N7K4o.46425$f_3.10714(a)newsfe17.iad... >>>>>> If you're here illegally, and whelp a pup, it's an American >>>>>> Citizen. >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess with all of the latest negative press and pressure from >>>>>> Conservative, Lindsey Graham thinks he's figured out a nice bone >>>>>> to throw for appeasement. Now, all of a sudden, he's very >>>>>> irritated by all of these anchor babies born here in America and >>>>>> he says: >>>>>> >>>>> <snip> >>>>> Dumbassed idea. And an even dumber idea is that an American born >>>>> child of illegal aliens somehow confers anchor status on the >>>>> parents. If the parents get into a deportable situation....deport >>>>> them and they are free to take the child with them. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The problem is, the baby is an anchor that lets the parents remain. >>>> Hence the term, anchor baby. >>>> >>>> If you had a clue, you'd know of the 14th Amendment that gives >>>> citizenship to anybody born on US soil. >>> - >>> And if you had a clue, you would see that I didn't disagree with your >>> position on birthright citizenship. The problem, as you stated is >>> the "anchor" status. There is absolutely no reason that a US citizen >>> child of illegals should have a bearing on the parents immigration >>> status. Deporting the parents does not mean that the child is >>> deported. The parents might decide to take the child with them...or >>> not. >>> >> >> Let's walk that through. >> >> If your mother is an illegal immigrant, and she crawled under the wire >> to squirt you out, and then was deported WHILE YOU (a minor child) >> WERE ALLOWED TO REMAIN, who would care for you? Me? >> >> Your mother would not be deported if it meant that you remained as a >> ward of the state. You would be deported to, which means you would be >> expelled or exiled. I can't think of any instance where such a move on >> the part of the government has ever taken place. But, assume for a >> moment that it could happen ... What would keep the government from >> simply expelling or exiling any other CITIZEN that it felt doesn't >> deserve to be here? >> >> The government cannot, or will not, send an American citizen (minor >> child, to boot) packing, and will instead allow an alien parent to >> receive resident alien status for no other reason than to care for the >> minor child. That is an attraction of the anchor baby clause of 14 -- >> come here and have a baby, then seek resident alien status through the >> relationship with the child. Siblings can also get resident alien >> status from the same anchor baby. > > It can be, and is, used as a method to bypass the normal channels for > citizenship which are clogged and need to remodeled to improve them. > > Exactly right. 14 was written at a time when people typically didn't stray very far from home, and even fewer went to new countries to live. The purpose was to grant automatic citizenship to the children of slaves, and 14 served that purpose very well. Now, we see people migrating all over the place -- modern transportation makes travel far easier than it was in 1865. In any case, we don't have slaves here that are making babies that need to be granted automatic citizenship. And, if there is a woman here that is a slave AND she makes a baby, I would accept an argument in the baby's favor. When an Illegal Immigrant comes to America to have her baby, I think it is perfectly reasonable that the baby be recognized as having the same citizenship as the mother. I see no reason to keep the provision of 14 that bestowes automatic citizenship just because one has the good fortune to cross a line on the desert floor before birth. When an immigrant comes LEGALLY and has a baby before she attains citizenship, I have absolutely no problem calling her baby a citizen. Legal immigrants have a Green Card (Resident Alien identification), and a baby born to a person of such status should be considered an American citizen. That's perfectly fine with me. But when the mother is an illegal immigrant, then the baby should be considered to be a citizen of whatever country the mother is from. If the mother is a visiting alien on a proper Visitor's Visa then that baby should also be considered to be the same citizenship as the mother. (It's almost impossible to be a visiting alien AND be here long enough to pump out a baby, so sending the baby home with the mother wouldn't cause me any grief at all.)
From: RD Sandman on 31 Jul 2010 17:38
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in news:i324tn$9p1$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: > > "RD Sandman" <rdsandman(a)comcast[remove].net> wrote in message > news:Xns9DC689ACBFC86hopewell(a)216.196.97.130... >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in >> news:i320i1$6df$1(a)news.eternal-september.org: >> >>> >>> "Wayne" <mygarbagecan(a)verizon.net> wrote in message >>> news:i31fve$2vh$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> >>>> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message >>>> news:i2vu6k$43o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>> >>>>> "Wayne" <mygarbagecan(a)verizon.net> wrote in message >>>>> news:i2vr8n$pne$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>>>> >>>>>> "Hachiroku ????" <Trueno(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message >>>>>> news:N7K4o.46425$f_3.10714(a)newsfe17.iad... >>>>>>> If you're here illegally, and whelp a pup, it's an American >>>>>>> Citizen. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I guess with all of the latest negative press and pressure from >>>>>>> Conservative, Lindsey Graham thinks he's figured out a nice bone >>>>>>> to throw for appeasement. Now, all of a sudden, he's very >>>>>>> irritated by all of these anchor babies born here in America and >>>>>>> he says: >>>>>>> >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>> Dumbassed idea. And an even dumber idea is that an American born >>>>>> child of illegal aliens somehow confers anchor status on the >>>>>> parents. If the parents get into a deportable >>>>>> situation....deport them and they are free to take the child with >>>>>> them. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The problem is, the baby is an anchor that lets the parents >>>>> remain. Hence the term, anchor baby. >>>>> >>>>> If you had a clue, you'd know of the 14th Amendment that gives >>>>> citizenship to anybody born on US soil. >>>> - >>>> And if you had a clue, you would see that I didn't disagree with >>>> your position on birthright citizenship. The problem, as you >>>> stated is the "anchor" status. There is absolutely no reason that >>>> a US citizen child of illegals should have a bearing on the parents >>>> immigration status. Deporting the parents does not mean that the >>>> child is deported. The parents might decide to take the child with >>>> them...or not. >>>> >>> >>> Let's walk that through. >>> >>> If your mother is an illegal immigrant, and she crawled under the >>> wire to squirt you out, and then was deported WHILE YOU (a minor >>> child) WERE ALLOWED TO REMAIN, who would care for you? Me? >>> >>> Your mother would not be deported if it meant that you remained as a >>> ward of the state. You would be deported to, which means you would >>> be expelled or exiled. I can't think of any instance where such a >>> move on the part of the government has ever taken place. But, assume >>> for a moment that it could happen ... What would keep the government >>> from simply expelling or exiling any other CITIZEN that it felt >>> doesn't deserve to be here? >>> >>> The government cannot, or will not, send an American citizen (minor >>> child, to boot) packing, and will instead allow an alien parent to >>> receive resident alien status for no other reason than to care for >>> the minor child. That is an attraction of the anchor baby clause of >>> 14 -- come here and have a baby, then seek resident alien status >>> through the relationship with the child. Siblings can also get >>> resident alien status from the same anchor baby. >> >> It can be, and is, used as a method to bypass the normal channels for >> citizenship which are clogged and need to remodeled to improve them. >> >> > > Exactly right. > > 14 was written at a time when people typically didn't stray very far > from home, and even fewer went to new countries to live. The purpose > was to grant automatic citizenship to the children of slaves, and 14 > served that purpose very well. > > Now, we see people migrating all over the place -- modern > transportation makes travel far easier than it was in 1865. In any > case, we don't have slaves here that are making babies that need to be > granted automatic citizenship. And, if there is a woman here that is a > slave AND she makes a baby, I would accept an argument in the baby's > favor. > > When an Illegal Immigrant comes to America to have her baby, I think > it is perfectly reasonable that the baby be recognized as having the > same citizenship as the mother. I see no reason to keep the provision > of 14 that bestowes automatic citizenship just because one has the > good fortune to cross a line on the desert floor before birth. > > When an immigrant comes LEGALLY and has a baby before she attains > citizenship, I have absolutely no problem calling her baby a citizen. > Legal immigrants have a Green Card (Resident Alien identification), > and a baby born to a person of such status should be considered an > American citizen. That's perfectly fine with me. But when the mother > is an illegal immigrant, then the baby should be considered to be a > citizen of whatever country the mother is from. If the mother is a > visiting alien on a proper Visitor's Visa then that baby should also > be considered to be the same citizenship as the mother. (It's almost > impossible to be a visiting alien AND be here long enough to pump out > a baby, so sending the baby home with the mother wouldn't cause me any > grief at all.) We pretty much agree...... -- Sleep well tonight, RD (The Sandman) The three stages of our economy....... Recession - You neighbor loses his job... Depression - You lose your job... Recovery - Obama loses his.... |