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.
No, I wouldn't. I would abstain from voting. But I have issues with giving citizenship to children born here from parents that should not be here in the first place. That same president would quite possibly give amnesty to all those residing in our country that shouldn't be here, and would use their political success as justification for doing so.
Say there are two presidents running for office who have a reasonable chance of getting elected, one of whom was an "anchor baby" (an individual who obtained citizenship by virtue of being born on U.S. soil to an illegal immigrant). The "anchor baby" shares most of your views and has the right platform in your mind; the other president, a man or woman whose family has been here for many generations, opposes most of your views. Would you still vote for the "anchor baby"?
Birthright citizenship is perfectly legal.
Even Nicole Kidman is an "anchor baby". Born in Hawaii to visiting Australian parents and raised in Oz. Relocated to the US for job (Hollywood) opportunities.
"Anchor baby" is a nonsense term. The government promotes Birthright citizenship. Countries who have birthright citizenship want foreigners to relocate to the US.
If the goverment wanted to limit the adoption of US nationalities ONLY to the children of US nationals, then, the US government would adopt citizenship by bloodright as the only legal way to pass on citizenship.
An "anchor baby" is as U.S. American as the very same founding fathers, according to the current laws and constitution.
Even Nicole Kidman is an "anchor baby". Born in Hawaii to visiting Australian parents and raised in Oz. Relocated to the US for job (Hollywood) opportunities.
"Anchor baby" is a nonsense term. The government promotes Birthright citizenship. Countries who have birthright citizenship want foreigners to relocate to the US.
If the goverment wanted to limit the adoption of US nationalities ONLY to the children of US nationals, then, the US government would adopt citizenship by bloodright as the only legal way to pass on citizenship.
An "anchor baby" is as U.S. American as the very same founding fathers, according to the current laws and constitution.
Not all the time. The US born kid of a diplomat aint a US citizen. The 14th needs to change to make ALL kids born to NON Americans NOT be US citizens.
Even Nicole Kidman is an "anchor baby". Born in Hawaii to visiting Australian parents and raised in Oz. Relocated to the US for job (Hollywood) opportunities.
"Anchor baby" is a nonsense term. The government promotes Birthright citizenship. Countries who have birthright citizenship want foreigners to relocate to the US.
If the goverment wanted to limit the adoption of US nationalities ONLY to the children of US nationals, then, the US government would adopt citizenship by bloodright as the only legal way to pass on citizenship.
An "anchor baby" is as U.S. American as the very same founding fathers, according to the current laws and constitution.
If Kidman's parents came here legally then no, she isn't an anchor baby. Regardless of the misinterpretation of birthright citizenship on the books thus making anchor's citizens, that needs to change and it can be and should be.
Not all the time. The US born kid of a diplomat aint a US citizen. The 14th needs to change to make ALL kids born to NON Americans NOT be US citizens.
True. I agree.
The US nationality should be adopted only by the children of US nationals.
311 million is the current population. Settlement should not be promoted anymore by the government. Birthright citizenship made sense 200 years ago, but it does not make sense today.
The US nationality should be adopted only by the children of US nationals.
311 million is the current population. Settlement should not be promoted anymore by the government. Birthright citizenship made sense 200 years ago, but it does not make sense today.
I'm glad you said 200 years ago. Because birthright citizenship was not established by the 14th Amendment. It was a common law principle well before the 14th.
As strongly opposed to illegal immigration as I am, and as much as I believe birthright citizenship laws should be amended, I would vote for the person. As the law now stands, this person is a citizen, and we are a nation of laws. The fact that this candidate shared my views would decide the issue, ideology would trump personal reservations. In a practical sense, this situation would be extremely unlikely to arise. A very large number of the Latino anchor baby population have been radicalized. It is this group that fills the ranks of La Raza, MEChA and other radical groups. It is mostly these young adults that believe in the re conquista nonsense, not their illegal immigrant parents. It is very unlikely that a strong Constitutional Conservative will arise from this group and run for office. It is possible, but will believe it when I see it.
As strongly opposed to illegal immigration as I am, and as much as I believe birthright citizenship laws should be amended, I would vote for the person. As the law now stands, this person is a citizen, and we are a nation of laws. The fact that this candidate shared my views would decide the issue, ideology would trump personal reservations. In a practical sense, this situation would be extremely unlikely to arise. A very large number of the Latino anchor baby population have been radicalized. It is this group that fills the ranks of La Raza, MEChA and other radical groups. It is mostly these young adults that believe in the re conquista nonsense, not their illegal immigrant parents. It is very unlikely that a strong Constitutional Conservative will arise from this group and run for office. It is possible, but will believe it when I see it.
That is exactly why I would be unlikely to vote for an anchor baby. Far too many have adopted the La Raza mindset. We already have enough Hispanic politiicans who think their ethnic group should be above our laws.
Let's switch this one around..."how many jobs have you lost to "anchor babies" because they spoke Spanish, and were American Citizens?", or how much in possible scholarship money did you lose, to a "minority" anchor baby? We could go on and on....I would vote for anyone before an Anchor baby...Sarah Palin...Ross Perot...ANYONE....
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.
