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, 01:34 PM
 
1,574 posts, read 791,268 times
Reputation: 124

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkane2 View Post
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......
No, just no. I'm not sure if you realize this, but there are options between "grant citizenship to anyone who has a child here" and "break up families."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-11-2011, 01:36 PM
 
1,574 posts, read 791,268 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkane2 View Post
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!
I think the bright side in your mind is that they'll all be somewhere you don't have to see them. If togetherness were really your concern, you would favor a different approach.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 01:37 PM
 
1,574 posts, read 791,268 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
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.
lol "wrongly interpreted".

Please show us your infallible book of Constitutional Interpretation that outlines the RIGHT way to interpret it.

Or, just explain why "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States" is being interpreted incorrectly?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 02:26 PM
 
1,574 posts, read 791,268 times
Reputation: 124
Quote:
Originally Posted by california-jewel View Post
Not a bad idea at all. Lets see how much they really luv this Country over their own Country. Actually a pretty decent idea.
I would oppose this idea, but if it were to happen, it should apply to EVERYONE that is born here. That is, NOBODY gets citizenship just by being born.

Now, under this set of rules, how many of the "deport em all" crowd would make the cut?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 02:40 PM
 
Location: Vermont
10,098 posts, read 10,650,616 times
Reputation: 13466
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenkane2 View Post
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......
In other words, you don't care what the facts are, you're just going to keep telling the same bogus story.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 02:42 PM
 
Location: Vermont
10,098 posts, read 10,650,616 times
Reputation: 13466
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
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.
1. Could you explain, please, why the exact language of the amendment is a wrong interpretation? Are you one of those judicial activists we hear so much about?

2. Is that what the parents think? And you know this how, exactly? You're aware that illegal aliens don't get welfare benefits, right?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Jacurutu
5,302 posts, read 4,020,887 times
Reputation: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime View Post
So then you agree that the "my great grandpa came here legally, therefore nobody else has any excuse" line is bogus, right?
My original comment was focused on illegal immigration, in saying that "jumping in line" or "sneaking in line" is an incorrect term. Illegal immigrants don't "jump in line" (there is no "line"), nor do they gain any identical immigration status that a Legal Permanent Resident (aka "legal immigrant") would have. Maybe something like "jumped the process" can be used instead, by anyone that just can't let go that illegal immigrants are somehow gaining a status they shouldn't have.

I've already addressed the "legally like my ancestors" perspective before. In the absence of a specific law, something cannot be identified as either "legal" or "illegal". It doesn't have any context to say indigenous tribes 400 years ago hunted deer "legally". They have their societal norms for other areas in place at the time, just no regulation on the hunting of game animals.

Even when applied to an immigration depot like Ellis Island (starting operations in 1892, and inundated within a year), immigration for Western European was not in a context of being "legal" or "illegal". Were immigrants landing at other ports or borders able to get in (perhaps even "sneaking") without any processing or permissions? You betcha. Did it impact them later to become a citizen if they wanted? Not at all.

If you can find a particular ancestor going through Ellis Island (an average of 4 hours of processing, with medical screenings being a matter of seconds, and known to be bypassed by fraud) it means nothing to how they may have gained their U.S. citizenship later...

It's a wholly different context, and I expect the regulars reading this to not use the terminology further...

Last edited by IBMMuseum; 08-11-2011 at 03:24 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 04:50 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,168,220 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough View Post
1. Could you explain, please, why the exact language of the amendment is a wrong interpretation? Are you one of those judicial activists we hear so much about?

2. Is that what the parents think? And you know this how, exactly? You're aware that illegal aliens don't get welfare benefits, right?
1. No, because it has all been explained in here before and in fact just recently by Liquid Reins. Search the topics.

2. Since amnesty keeps being promised the parents think that having a U.S. citizen child will give them leverage to be first in line for an amnesty. They get welfare benefits through their U.S. born children and you know it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 04:57 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,168,220 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by IBMMuseum View Post
My original comment was focused on illegal immigration, in saying that "jumping in line" or "sneaking in line" is an incorrect term. Illegal immigrants don't "jump in line" (there is no "line"), nor do they gain any identical immigration status that a Legal Permanent Resident (aka "legal immigrant") would have. Maybe something like "jumped the process" can be used instead, by anyone that just can't let go that illegal immigrants are somehow gaining a status they shouldn't have.

I've already addressed the "legally like my ancestors" perspective before. In the absence of a specific law, something cannot be identified as either "legal" or "illegal". It doesn't have any context to say indigenous tribes 400 years ago hunted deer "legally". They have their societal norms for other areas in place at the time, just no regulation on the hunting of game animals.

Even when applied to an immigration depot like Ellis Island (starting operations in 1892, and inundated within a year), immigration for Western European was not in a context of being "legal" or "illegal". Were immigrants landing at other ports or borders able to get in (perhaps even "sneaking") without any processing or permissions? You betcha. Did it impact them later to become a citizen if they wanted? Not at all.

If you can find a particular ancestor going through Ellis Island (an average of 4 hours of processing, with medical screenings being a matter of seconds, and known to be bypassed by fraud) it means nothing to how they may have gained their U.S. citizenship later...

It's a wholly different context, and I expect the regulars reading this to not use the terminology further...
You know damned well that when we use the term "jumped ahead of the line" that it does mean they "jumped the process". I don't know why you like to nit-pick when you know what we mean. None of us ever claimed that by doing so that they gained some sort of legal status.

Wrong! In absence of a law then something is not illegal but legal. How things were done back in the Ellis Island days is totally irrelevant to today's lawfull way of entering our country. Why you continue to bring up past immigration is beyond me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-11-2011, 05:54 PM
 
12,870 posts, read 12,794,784 times
Reputation: 4446
Quote:
Originally Posted by rhymetime View Post
Joking about physically attacking human beings? People act like I'm nuts when I say certain people think of illegals as sub-human.
are you implying that the parents wouldn't be on the other side waiting to catch them?

that's just sick.
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