If birthright citizenship is overturned, how should we handle the status of current anchor children? (illegals, racism)

[chicagonut]

Originally Posted by odinloki1

If birthright citizenship is overturned, what would be the point? Is it some sort of "my parents were here before you were so go away!"

What guarantees citizenship then? Passing a test? (lots of people born here would fail that) Would it be ancestoral heritage? (lets just give Native Americans the country because that would be where we're going)

Coming from a white guy, this concept sounds like white man paranoia and one group of people just manipulating the system to stay in power.

The "point" is that giving a child born from illegal aliens instant citizenship is ridiculous. Your snide remark about "white man paranoia" is duly noted as the usual race card pulling. I wouldn't care if the parent's were here illegally from Germany. I would still feel the same way.

Most countries deny birthright citizenship to a newborn unless one or both parents are citizens of that country. We should follow suit in view of the fact that foreign pregnant women are jumping our borders or flying in for the purpose of giving birth in our country is nothing but a scam. Even if they aren't pregnant when they get here they know that by giving birth in our country it will entitle that child to all kinds of freebies till he/she is 18 years old and then can sponsor all their relatives in the homeland to be able to come here also. It is utter nonsense and makes a mockery of our precious citizenship.

[simpleharmonicmotion]

Originally Posted by UrbanQuest

The Hispanic label should be ended. White Hispanics and black hispanics have a much different experience in this country. Mixed race hispanics should be given a chance to pick a mixed category which is acceptable to them, as just choosing white and black (and there isn't even an Amerindian choice), doesn't seem to identify for them. Just add Mestizo or Creole and it would be more palatable for the majority of hispanics that are mixed to choose. Otherwise most mixed Hispanics will choose white, which is not accurate.

I wholeheartedly agree. And who's to say that in time white Hispanics and Black Hispanics wont just drop the label and just become White and Black Americans?

[simpleharmonicmotion]

Originally Posted by Benicar

Clearly, ethnocentric Hispanics have a vested interest in including Hispanic illegal aliens in their numbers. If not for MASSIVE Hispanic illegal immigration, and the millions of children they give birth to on U.S. soil, Hispanics would not have been elevated to the majority-minority slot. Furthermore, given that “Hispanic” can be from any race -- what are we really talking about, other than a shared language? Hispanic is as much a “race” as being an “American.” Moreover, if whites are the majority in this country, and many “Hispanics” are indeed white, why are white “Hispanics” even considered a minority?

This is indeed true. And many ethnocentric Latinos (special emphasis on the Amerindian and Mestizo kind from Mexico) seem almost obsessed with outnumbering Black people. This reminds me of this interview for Hispanic Heritage month done on NPR where Michel Martin (a black woman) points this out:
Hispanic Or Latino? That Is The Question : NPR

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by blueseas123

This is indeed true. And many ethnocentric Latinos (special emphasis on the Amerindian and Mestizo kind from Mexico) seem almost obsessed with outnumbering Black people. This reminds me of this interview for Hispanic Heritage month done on NPR where Michel Martin (a black woman) points this out:
Hispanic Or Latino? That Is The Question : NPR

That link you posted confirms a lot of what I am suspecting in that the pendulum of public opinion it tilting fast against illegal aliens-------who as a group are usually Hispanic/Latino (AKA Mestizo):

MARTIN: And speaking of what some consider to be the more pressing issues, Ruben sent this rocket earlier this week as a way to celebrate Hispanic Heritage Month. And he's says that he's giving Hispanic immigrants a gift straight from the heart: a lecture. And I'll just read a short bit of his advice, as he's got 10 things that he thinks that Hispanic immigrants - particularly Hispanic, not exclusively, but particularly Hispanic immigrants, he says, should do to improve their relationship with the U.S.

Number one: All immigrants should enter legally. Number two: Learn English. Number three: Don't feel entitled to anything. Number four: Don't play the victim. Number five: Assimilate. Number six: Accept conditions to become legal. Number seven: Challenge both political parties. Number eight: Teach your children that education is indispensable. Number nine: Earn citizenship, then register and vote. Number 10: Put down roots. Give up this fantasy of returning home. Ladies and gentlemen, send the mail to Ruben, not to me.

And this zinger:

The word Hispanic may have a negative connotation in Los Angeles, but it doesn't have a negative connotation in New Mexico, Arizona, Texas and Colorado. In those places, people of all different complexions call themselves Hispanic. And really, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter much.

Both from the above quote article. Needless to say; 'Hispanic' is also becoming a pejorative term here in Arizona.

[marigolds6]

There is absolutely no way you can allow grandfathering if birthright citizenship is repealed.
The opposite should happen; existing 'citizens' should be required to prove that at least one of their ancestors was born to non-birthright citizen. For those who are left stateless, grant them legal permanent residency but not citizenship; their children are similarly only eligible for legal permanent residency if neither parent is a citizen and permanently barred from citizenship.
This will very simply and neatly cut of the problem of any Hispanic backlash, end chain immigration almost immediately, and cleanly solve the stateless problem without stopgap solutions.
[/swift]

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by marigolds6

There is absolutely no way you can allow grandfathering if birthright citizenship is repealed.
The opposite should happen; existing 'citizens' should be required to prove that at least one of their ancestors was born to non-birthright citizen. For those who are left stateless, grant them legal permanent residency but not citizenship; their children are similarly only eligible for legal permanent residency if neither parent is a citizen and permanently barred from citizenship.
This will very simply and neatly cut of the problem of any Hispanic backlash, end chain immigration almost immediately, and cleanly solve the stateless problem without stopgap solutions.
[/swift]

We here are referring to grandfathering in extant Anchor Babies; but, kids born after a certain date (assuming that both parents are illegal aliens) would be out of luck. Besides: having one parent who is a US citizens trumps the one who is an illegal re: citizenship for a kid here...........read that said child would not be an Anchor.

As for any Hispanic backlash----------who cares? Either Latinos as a group are with us or they are traitors to the USA, it is as simple as that.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by chicagonut

I totally agree. On another note, why does Obama only identify himself as being black when he is just as white as he is black racially? He is of mixed race and I believe white/black is called Mulatto.

It's been that way since there has been an America. Most African Americans are of mixed race. If you are of African ancestry, no matter how much, you are black. Would it really make sense for Obama to say he were white?

[ArizonaBear]

Originally Posted by Sunil's Dad

It's been that way since there has been an America. Most African Americans are of mixed race. If you are of African ancestry, no matter how much, you are black. Would it really make sense for Obama to say he were white?

And the sickening/humerous irony is that all people are of African ancestry according to their DNA.

[chicagonut]

Originally Posted by Sunil's Dad

It's been that way since there has been an America. Most African Americans are of mixed race. If you are of African ancestry, no matter how much, you are black. Would it really make sense for Obama to say he were white?

African is a nationality not a race. Black is a race. Since racially he is equally Black and White why does he and many others only refer to him as being Black? It is because by only claiming his Black side and playing down his White side the victim and minority game can be played.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by chicagonut

African is a nationality not a race. Black is a race. Since racially he is equally Black and White why does he and many others only refer to him as being Black? It is because by only claiming his Black side and playing down his White side the victim and minority game can be played.

Actually, African is not a nationality. Kenyan is a nationality. Senegalese is a nationality. Italian, or Canadian, or French are nationalities.

African Americans refer to themselves as such because their national or ethnic origins in Africa were obscured by the Middle Passage and by slavery.

As I said to you earlier, many, if not most, black people in America are mixed African and European. Several of my ancestors were much more Caucasian than African, yet they were "black" according to Jim Crow. I have DNA from all four continents in me, but in a social sense I am as black as Djimon Hounsou, Chiwetel Ejiofor or Idris Elba. In America, any discernible African ancestry makes you black. There is no controversy here. He claims his black side because he is obviously of African ancestry. As for that "victim and minority game" comment, I have no clue of what you are alluding to.