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.
Deport the parents. They are in the US illegally. I don't care if they have 'plans to stay'. Neither do I care if they have plans to raise their anchor children here. They can take their offspring with them or leave them here.
Since they have no qualms whatsoever about screwing us over big time, we should have none about repatriating them to their home countries.
Fine: deport the parents. That doesn't change that their children are citizens of this country.
If as you assert, “the bulk of illegals are here to stay” why do they resist assimilation? Why do they continue to have an allegiance to their countries of origin? Moreover, why should the 14th Amendment apply to ‘future’ intentions of individuals with no legal presence in this country? More importantly, why should people with no regard for our laws be rewarded with citizenship for their offspring? Why do they deserve anything?
I disagree with you that the illegal immigrants "resist immigration." In my experience (teaching English literacy to people who are mostly illegal immigrants) they DO want to assimilate. I don't think we're going to get anywhere arguing this because it's an opinion and not a fact; neither one of us is right. Also, the allegiance to the country of origin doesn't matter in this discussion much. If the American-born children of these illegal immigrants were to have a double allegiance to both their country of origin and to the United States, it still wouldn't matter much. I am personally subject to the jurisdiction of the states of Florida and New York because of my intent to remain, regularly visit, and/or do regular business within both states. If I were to move to California and someone were to sue me in a California court three weeks later, my intent to stay in California and establish domicile there would likely be enough for California to have jurisdiction over me. This is why intent matters. When speaking of the American-born children of illegal immigrants, there is presumably intent to establish domicile in this country and nowhere else. The fact that the child would likely be raised here and would in the future be attending American schools further satisfies the "minimum contacts" that are required for jurisdiction.
Again, I respectfully disagree. I would never excuse the actions of illegal aliens with a statement that "Americans break laws too!" - here, I am simply demonstrating that you mustn't obey all laws of this country to "avail yourself to this country's laws" in general. I feel that my example was a valid one but I agree that I should have never given it. You guys are going to get caught up in it and distracted from the REAL issue: the children of these illegal immigrants who have broken NO laws and who have the intent to remain in this country and avail themselves to its laws.
You are certainly intelligent enough to realize that children learn what they live. How do you expect the American-born children of illegal aliens to obey our laws, when their role models (their parents) have based their entire existence in this country on lying, cheating, and stealing? They have lived their entire lives believing the end justifies the means.
I disagree with you that the illegal immigrants "resist immigration." In my experience (teaching English literacy to people who are mostly illegal immigrants) they DO want to assimilate. I don't think we're going to get anywhere arguing this because it's an opinion and not a fact; neither one of us is right. Also, the allegiance to the country of origin doesn't matter in this discussion much. If the American-born children of these illegal immigrants were to have a double allegiance to both their country of origin and to the United States, it still wouldn't matter much. I am personally subject to the jurisdiction of the states of Florida and New York because of my intent to remain, regularly visit, and/or do regular business within both states. If I were to move to California and someone were to sue me in a California court three weeks later, my intent to stay in California and establish domicile there would likely be enough for California to have jurisdiction over me. This is why intent matters. When speaking of the American-born children of illegal immigrants, there is presumably intent to establish domicile in this country and nowhere else. The fact that the child would likely be raised here and would in the future be attending American schools further satisfies the "minimum contacts" that are required for jurisdiction.
No offense crisp, but I know for a fact, you can do better than this.
You are certainly intelligent enough to realize that children learn what they live. How do you expect the American-born children of illegal aliens to obey our laws, when their role models (their parents) have based their entire existence in this country on lying, cheating, and stealing? They have lived their entire lives believing the end justifies the means.
You're suggesting the most of the illegal immigrants are bad people (what else is "based their entire existence in this country... lying, cheating, and stealing" supposed to suggest?!?) and I disagree with this. Their parents broke immigration law but are likely obeying other laws. These kids are growing up just fine. With that said, this is irrelevant to our discussion. Children born in this country meet the "minimum contacts" requirement of personal jurisdiction and thus are citizens of this country. That's what matters, not some below-the-belt attack on the morals of the illegal immigrants and speculation that their children will grow up to be criminals.
I refuse to get caught up in the emotional symbolism of "lawbreaking" (and not even that of the children, the people in question!!!) and am just sticking to a legal interpretation that can certainly be called reasonable - it's the interpretation that has been used for many years and is currently used now. It's not just some left-field opinion of mine.
No offense crisp, but I know for a fact, you can do better than this.
Huh? You can have allegiance to places other than this country but still be subject to this country's jurisdiction. Again, this discussion is about the children - children who will likely have an allegiance to ONLY this country or PRIMARILY TO this country -and not about the illegal immigrants.
Children born here to illegal aliens should NOT be given citizenship because children, when born, are automatically conferred the citizenship of their parents. The plain truth is the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment is very flawed. It goes against the very words of the authors of it. We don't have to guess about what those men meant when this Amendment was ratified, we have a written record of what they intended.
If the parents aren't 'subject to the jurisdiction of', their offspring aren't, either.
You're suggesting the most of the illegal immigrants are bad people (what else is "based their entire existence in this country... lying, cheating, and stealing" supposed to suggest?!?) and I disagree with this. Their parents broke immigration law but are likely obeying other laws. These kids are growing up just fine. With that said, this is irrelevant to our discussion. Children born in this country meet the "minimum contacts" requirement of personal jurisdiction and thus are citizens of this country. That's what matters, not some below-the-belt attack on the morals of the illegal immigrants and speculation that their children will grow up to be criminals.
How are their parents working in this country, if not through the unauthorized use of a legal citizens' SSN, fake SSN, or evading taxes by working under the table? Please explain how the majority of these 'law-abiding' illegal aliens are employed in this country, given the fact that illegal aliens cannot be lawfully employed?
Sorry, but we can’t ignore the illegality of the parents of these children.
Sorry, but we can’t ignore the illegality of the parents of these children.
We've talked about this before. I can look past the emotional/symbolic stuff to get to the actual matter at hand. The matter here is not the illegal immigrants; it's their American-born children. And no, GuyPinestra, it's quite common that parents and children are subject to the jurisdiction of different states/countries. For example, a man who raises his family in suburban NJ but works in NY is subject to the jurisdiction of both states while his family is only subject to the jurisdiction of NJ. If you want to hear the reverse situation, while I was in college (and a dependant of my parents), they were ONLY subject to the jurisdiction of FL while I was subject to the jurisdiction of both FL and MA. An American-born child of illegal immigrants is subject to this country's jurisdiction even though his parents may not be subject to that same jurisdiction.
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.
