U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: What to do with anchor babies
Deport all the anchor babies, and strip them of their US citizenship 65 60.75%
I accept anchor babies as US citizens will full rights, but I think the law should be changed. 16 14.95%
Anchor babies are US citizens. Even if they leave the country with their deported parents, they may come back any time. 26 24.30%
Voters: 107. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-11-2011, 10:54 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,719,788 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad View Post
I agree that it's silly.
Great dodge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockmadinejad
The SS is saying that the birth certificate is not valid for their purposes, but the assumption that being born on US soil or to citizen parents grants citizenship is not being challenged.
I know what SS is saying, it's stated in the article; DoS pretty much says the same thing about giving them US Passports. Are the girls not attempting to prove they are US citizens in order to obtain these documents (the girls law suits)? or, is it that there is not enough proof they are US citizens in order to obtain these documents (SS and DoS claims)? Can it not be both?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2011, 11:14 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,192,202 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
There isn't even a virtual line or FIFO queue that legal immigrants go through anymore. Referring to it as such is a misnomer. Each case processes individually through the steps, and has its own unique timeline and factors that affect it.
Many things have changed with the times and not just in regards to immigration, so what? We have to adhere to today's policies, not yesterdays.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 11:28 AM
 
1,569 posts, read 1,009,034 times
Reputation: 111
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Great dodge.


I know what SS is saying, it's stated in the article; DoS pretty much says the same thing about giving them US Passports. Are the girls not attempting to prove they are US citizens in order to obtain these documents (the girls law suits)? or, is it that there is not enough proof they are US citizens in order to obtain these documents (SS and DoS claims)? Can it not be both?
I don't know what you think I'm dodging, or what you even really think the issue is here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 11:34 AM
 
1,574 posts, read 793,663 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Many things have changed with the times and not just in regards to immigration, so what? We have to adhere to today's policies, not yesterdays.
So then you agree that the "my great grandpa came here legally, therefore nobody else has any excuse" line is bogus, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 11:36 AM
 
Location: Vermont
10,099 posts, read 10,681,582 times
Reputation: 13472
I know I've said this before but I'll keep saying it.

There is no such thing as an anchor baby.

The law--and yes, although you conservatives may not like it, the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land--provides that, "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."

This means that regardless of your parents' citizenship, if you're born here you're a citizen. The exception is people who are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", i.e. foreign diplomats.

It also means that a state has no authority to adopt a different standard for citizenship, no matter what they may claim.

The birth of a child in the United States has absolutely no effect on the citizenship of the parents, and it does not convey citizenship or the right to remain in the United States on the parents.

In other words, people who are citizens by virtue of their birth in the United States DO NOT anchor their parents to the country.

Hence, there is no such thing as an anchor baby. The use of the term is just a way to inflame the debate by injecting a false premise into the discussion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 11:53 AM
 
Location: OCEAN BREEZES AND VIEWS SAN CLEMENTE
19,899 posts, read 15,378,223 times
Reputation: 6451
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
They should apply for citizenship at 18.

It makes no sense to have them as automatic citizens against their will.
Not a bad idea at all. Lets see how much they really luv this Country over their own Country. Actually a pretty decent idea.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 12:08 PM
 
10,658 posts, read 11,389,979 times
Reputation: 6015
Should children be put out on the street if their parent don't pay the rent or mortgage??

Unfortunately children often suffer the consequences of their parent's foolish actions!

A child goes fatherless because his dad murdered a man is now in prison!! Child suffer....sad but true.

The parent should not have come in illegally. THEY BROKE THE LAW! The child belong to the parent! ALL SHOULD GO!

The bright side to that is that they will all still be together!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 12:12 PM
 
10,658 posts, read 11,389,979 times
Reputation: 6015
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
I know I've said this before but I'll keep saying it.

There is no such thing as an anchor baby.

The law--and yes, although you conservatives may not like it, the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land--provides that, "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."

This means that regardless of your parents' citizenship, if you're born here you're a citizen. The exception is people who are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", i.e. foreign diplomats.

It also means that a state has no authority to adopt a different standard for citizenship, no matter what they may claim.

The birth of a child in the United States has absolutely no effect on the citizenship of the parents, and it does not convey citizenship or the right to remain in the United States on the parents.

In other words, people who are citizens by virtue of their birth in the United States DO NOT anchor their parents to the country.

Hence, there is no such thing as an anchor baby. The use of the term is just a way to inflame the debate by injecting a false premise into the discussion.

Oh pleeez!! It does and you know it does!! It is used as a tool to sway public opinion in their favor! "Oh the evil government is breaking up those poor Hispanic families!!"

"They are tearing that baby from the arms of it's mother!" Etc...etc......
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 12:17 PM
 
Location: Arvada, CO
12,854 posts, read 23,341,437 times
Reputation: 12283
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
The process to come here legally may have changed over the years but there still is a legal way to come here so I don't know what your point is.

Yes, and we want to put all those deterrants in place to stop them from coming here illegally are you with us or against us? The deterrants are to change birthright citizenship, remove the job and benefit incentives. Pulling out all the stops to secure our borders, continued internal enforcement and making crossing our border illegally a felony.
My point was to the person I was quoting. How their ancestors got off a boat at Ellis Island and getting stamped, is nothing like today's immigration process -- the two don't and shouldn't compare.


Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
There isn't even a virtual line or FIFO queue that legal immigrants go through anymore. Referring to it as such is a misnomer. Each case processes individually through the steps, and has its own unique timeline and factors that affect it.
Yeah.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 12:51 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,192,202 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
I know I've said this before but I'll keep saying it.

There is no such thing as an anchor baby.

The law--and yes, although you conservatives may not like it, the Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land--provides that, "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."

This means that regardless of your parents' citizenship, if you're born here you're a citizen. The exception is people who are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof", i.e. foreign diplomats.

It also means that a state has no authority to adopt a different standard for citizenship, no matter what they may claim.

The birth of a child in the United States has absolutely no effect on the citizenship of the parents, and it does not convey citizenship or the right to remain in the United States on the parents.

In other words, people who are citizens by virtue of their birth in the United States DO NOT anchor their parents to the country.

Hence, there is no such thing as an anchor baby. The use of the term is just a way to inflame the debate by injecting a false premise into the discussion.
We all know what the current intepretation (although wrongly interpreted) of birthright citizenship is, that isn't the issue. The issue is getting it re-interpreted by the Supreme Court and if necessary making an amendment to it so that at least one parent has to be a citizen in order for their newborn to qualify for instant citizenship.

As for the term anchor baby, the parents "think" they will be granted stay here at some time in the future because they have a U.S. citizen baby. It also anchors them unto our welfare system for the same reason.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top