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.
Again, there is NO distinguished law that grants birthright citizenship, no matter how hard you are trying to prove otherwise, to illegal alien children, their birth here and susequent allowance is nothing more than presumed. What's going to happen when a State passes a bill requiring documentation in order to obtain the needed document? Why you brought up Rios-Pineda is beyond anything (happened in '85 three years after Plyler, which goes to tel me you are arguing from some other web site where you found your information and claiming mine to be cherry picked) other than agreeing with Ho. There are other cases that say the exact same as Rios-Pineda, but the issue isn't with their children nor in determining if they are in fact citizens but in the simple issue of their parents being here in violation of immigration law. Their children are brought in and are claimed by them as citizens for the simple fact to somehow show "hardship", which was denied and they were deported.
Even Gray determined that simply by being here one is "within the jurisdiction" of the State.
I have access to Westlaw and various other legal databases dude. I'm not Googling like you are - genuinely don't know who "Ho" is, and only found Eastman because (lol) he pops up in Wong Kim Ark's Wiki. This entire post is a dodge of my question.
You seem to have no concept of the relevance of dicta or how the Court interprets precedent, BTW.
If you could explain why a couple of cherrypicked, hazy lines from Wong Kim Ark trump Plyler, go ahead. But since (I'm informing you in advance) you can't, you should probably just pull up some quotes from Professor Eastman and be done with it.
So are you claiming then that he brought his wife here illegally?
No, there are particular non-immigrant visas that are arranged in those cases. I'm guessing that it would have been after 1965, when immigration shifted primarily to being family-based (even though he had an employment-based visa, they are understanding to let family come with him). "Adjustment of Status" from a non-immigrant visa critically depends on things like U.S. citizen children (and her father would have had to keep working for the same employer otherwise, without retirement or other changes, for him and his wife to remain here legally).
I'm not as familiar with the case of retired Senator Domenici's parents either, where his father was legally present, but his mother supposedly was not. Heck, I've even heard former Governor Bill Richardson referred to as an "Anchor Baby", with his citizen father preferring that his Mexican mother have him in the United States, but then moving the family back to Mexico, where Bill didn't come back until age 12 or 13 (his father had been born aboard a ship to U.S. citizen parents, and wanted to avoid any problems for Bill and his sister, currently a doctor in Mexico). Be aware that under "LiquidReigns" preferences for birth citizenship of "Anchor Babies", which it seemed you supported, neither Michelle, Pete, or Bill would have been a U.S. citizen, because of the nationality of their mothers, had those rules been in effect.
From FAIR's website, "An anchor baby is defined as an offspring of an illegal immigrant or other non-citizen, who under current legal interpretation becomes a United States citizen at birth. These children may instantly qualify for welfare and other state and local benefit programs."
Michelle's parents were here on work visas. They were not citizens when Michelle was born.
It really isn't that hard to understand. She is by definition an anchor baby.
Be consistent. You can't make exceptions just because she shares your viewpoints.
From FAIR's website, "An anchor baby is defined as an offspring of an illegal immigrant or other non-citizen, who under current legal interpretation becomes a United States citizen at birth. These children may instantly qualify for welfare and other state and local benefit programs."
Michelle's parents were here on work visas. They were not citizens when Michelle was born.
It really isn't that hard to understand. She is by definition an anchor baby.
Be consistent. You can't make exceptions just because she shares your viewpoints.
Exactly, this is going to be where FAIR's use of "non-citizen" (meaning to lump both legal and illegal immigration together) is going to bite them. They want to express it that way to skew numbers without context. I've seen what even seems to be willful deception (i.e. misreporting the sponsorship levels to immigration) from their website anyway, but in too many places they are quoted as fact.
What do you expect, when the other Tanton derivative of CIS mimics them to define "reduced-cost school lunches" as "receiving welfare"...
From FAIR's website, "An anchor baby is defined as an offspring of an illegal immigrant or other non-citizen, who under current legal interpretation becomes a United States citizen at birth. These children may instantly qualify for welfare and other state and local benefit programs."
Michelle's parents were here on work visas. They were not citizens when Michelle was born.
It really isn't that hard to understand. She is by definition an anchor baby.
Be consistent. You can't make exceptions just because she shares your viewpoints.
My understanding and interpretation of the term anchor baby is that the baby was born from illegal aliens parents, period. I am not making an exception for her because that wasn't the case for her and her family. I really don't care what FAIR says. Did they coin the phrase or do they have some authorization to interpret what it means?
I would like to see birthright citizenship changed so that at least one parent has to be a citizen of this country in order for their newborn to qualify for birthright citizenship, preferably the mother.
...I really don't care what FAIR says. Did they coin the phrase or do they have some authorization to interpret what it means?...
But they purposely skew it that way to give all of the quotes that are so heavily-used. Imagine that, for their "Anchor Baby" numbers you need to read the small print on their site. Shows why I believe nothing of what they say anymore.
But they purposely skew it that way to give all of the quotes that are so heavily-used. Imagine that, for their "Anchor Baby" numbers you need to read the small print on their site. Shows why I believe nothing of what they say anymore.
And this is of importance to me, why? I am not a member of FAIR. If you really want to take issue with proper terms and verbage then why doesn't it bother you when the pro-illegals and their sites call illegal aliens just plain ole "immigrants"? I mean they are blurring the lines between illegal aliens and your family members. Why doesn't that bother you?
"Five Moral Arguments Against the DREAM Act" - Ira Mehlman
dig:
"...Ira joined FAIR as media director in 1986..."
"Media Director" probably means hands on everything that FAIR releases, including phrasing, definitions, and terminology...
For the last 25 years...
Obviously you use their data, as others do here and elsewhere...
I need to show (maybe in the legal immigration sub-forum) the FAIR sponsorship page that is so inaccurate, it's amusing the way they defined it...
I haven't knowingly use their data and I had no idea what their interpretation of "anchor baby" is. The fact remains however that the "Five Moral Arguments Against the Dream Act" is very compelling and truthful and I didn't find it under the FAIR website but another forum. Even a clock is right twice a day.
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.
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.
