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.
If she has a ten year old then that means she was 15 years old when she gave birth to him/her. There are far too many cases of teen pregnancy and the taxpayer having to foot the bill for their births. It is particulary troubling when neither the father nor the mother are here legally.
I wonder how much of our tax dollars have gone caring for her sick and disabled children? If allowed to stay we will be caring for them the rest of their lives.
The kids are Americans. Our tax dollars helping support her kids is just the norm when it comes to American kids born to teen parents.
I don't understand what this has to do with illegal immigration since the kids are AMERICANS and the issue is about the kids.
I understand where you are coming from, but you seem to be under the impression that those children are automatic citizens that we would get back in, as you said, 15 years. If she goes to the Mexican Consulate and obtains passports for them, they will be Mexican Citizens. Once they turn of age they can possibly claim US Citizenship, but there is no guarantee they will receive it simply by having been born here.
You are also under the impression that there is a "fixed number" that are deported, how can that be when each year that number has increased? If the concern is the Felon or the Misdemeanor Mom and children, then why not grant a temporary stay, give her a number and date pre-scheduled so that the Felon can go immediately and she, along with her children, will still go in say 30 to 60 days.
A child born in the US is a citizen. I don't believe there is an actual law that qualifies a child born to an illegal immediate citizenship, but is based on a law that a child born in the US is a citizen with no exception. They never lose that status, even if they are born in the US and leave the country for an extended period of time. If the child/ren don't have a passport upon deportation one can be obtained from the American Embassy in Mexico, providing it can be proven that they were born in the US. They can also obtain the Mexico passport and hold dual citizenship. There are many people from different countries who are not US citizens who enter the US legally on a visit visa for the sole purpose of delivering their baby who would then be a US citizen, then they return to their home country. This is done in the US, the UK and Canada. It doesn't cost the government anything other than issuing a passport. IMO, one parent should be a citizen for citizenship to be given to a child.
What is happening now is slow amnesty for all illegals, which does not make them citizens but will provide a green card giving them legal status as residents to allow them to work towards citizenship.
How do you trackdown and deport 12-20 million illlegal aliens? This should have never happened or reached the level it has. Government learned absolutely nothing when it gave amnesty in 1986 to 2.7 million illegals. What has happened today is a repeat of the past but on a much bigger scale, and should amnesty be given, which I think is inevitable, there is no questoin that laws and regulations need a big overhaul for it not to happen again.
One sign that slow amnesty is happening is putting criminals, at all levels, at the top of the list and deporting them before amnesty is official. Doing what is practical is not always possible.
Quote:
The proposed immigration amnesty would benefit the 12 to 20 million undocumented aliens (illegal immigrants) currently living in the United States. An amnesty for illegal aliens forgives their acts of illegal immigration and implicitly forgives other related illegal acts such as driving and working with false documents. The result of an amnesty is that large numbers of foreigners who illegally gained entry into the United States are rewarded with legal status (Green Card) for breaking immigration laws.
(Obama) "We are not going to ship back 12 million people, we're not going to do it as a practical matter. We would have to take all our law enforcement that we have available and we would have to use it and put people on buses, and rip families apart, and that's not who we are, that's not what America is about. So what I've proposed... is you say we're going to bring these folks out of the shadows. We're going to make them pay a fine, they are going to have to learn English, they are going to have to go to the back of the line...but they will have a pathway to citizenship over the course of 10 years."
Who knows what "other related acts" will be forgiven?? Is the example in the above statement the least possible acts to be forgiven, or the worst possible acts to be forgiven? Does it get any worse than driving or working undocumented?? Amnesty should also require that people become responsible for their family irregardless of the fact that their children are US citizens, without government assistance. Amnesty should include that all welfare and social benefits cease. Government does support children of US citizens, nor should they support the children of anyone who receives a green card.
So I would say, amnesty is coming. Once people realize it and come to terms with it their blood pressure might go down. But then again, when amnesty actually takes hold and becomes law, I'm sure the same arguments will continue. It won't be about what they are doing, it will be about what they've done.
Last edited by softblueyz; 01-15-2012 at 02:47 AM..
A child born in the US is a citizen. I don't believe there is an actual law that qualifies a child born to an illegal immediate citizenship, but is based on a law that a child born in the US is a citizen with no exception. They never lose that status, even if they are born in the US and leave the country for an extended period of time. If the children don't have a passport upon deportation one can be obtained from the American Embassy in Mexico, providing it can be proven that they were born in the US. They can also obtain the Mexico passport and hold dual citizenship. There are many people from different countries who are not US citizens who enter the US legally on a visit visa for the sole purpose of delivering their baby who would then be a US citizen, then they return to their home country. This is done in the US, the UK and Canada. It doesn't cost the government anything other than issuing a passport. IMO, one parent should be a citizen for citizenship to be given to a child.
What is happening now is slow amnesty for all illegals, which does not make them citizens but will provide a green card giving them legal status as residents to allow them to work towards citizenship.
How do you trackdown and deport 12-20 million illlegal aliens? This should have never happened or reached the level it has. Government learned absolutely nothing when it gave amnesty in 1986 to 2.7 million illegals. What has happened today is a repeat of the past but on a much bigger scale, and should amnesty be given, which I think is inevitable, there is no questoin that laws and regulations need a big overhaul for it not to happen again.
One sign that slow amnesty is happening is putting criminals, at all levels, at the top of the list and deporting them before amnesty is official. Doing what is practical is not always possible.
Who knows what "other related acts" will be forgiven?? Is the example in the above statement the least possible acts to be forgiven, or the worst possible acts to be forgiven? Does it get any worse than driving or working undocumented?? Amnesty should also require that people become responsible for their family irregardless of the fact that their children are US citizens, without government assistance. Amnesty should include that all welfare and social benefits cease. Government does support children of US citizens, nor should they support the children of anyone who receives a green card.
So I would say, amnesty is coming. Once people realize it and come to terms with it their blood pressure might go down. But then again, when amnesty actually takes hold and becomes law, I'm sure the same arguments will continue. It won't be about what they are doing, it will be about what they've done.
The DoS claims (7 FAM 1111 (d)2(a)Acquisition of U.S. citizenship generally is not affected by the fact that the parents may be in the United States temporarily
or illegally) that through WKA (7 1111 d.) all persons born here even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth. You see, this part in red was added by the Obama administration in 2009 based on their interpretation and not actual law. If you would like to argue the WKA case, I'm more than willing to, I would first recommend you understand Calvin's Case as Gray refers, where in his parents were Scots owing allegiance to the King of Scotland, the King of England then incorporated Scotland and Ireland and Calvin's parents were now English Subjects even though they were born owing allegiance to a foreign King. Since Calvin's parents were now English subjects, Calvin is born under English rule and becomes an English, not Scottish, subject. If you could understand that Jus Soli is being born of the allegiance owed and on the soil owned by the ruler. WKA parents were here with the permission of the US Gov't, so in essence they owed allegiance to the US when WKA was born.
If you have any other known case where BRC is proven to be granted to aliens, please cite it. As you can see, the words "generally not effected" leaves open the possibility that BRC can be denied to "anchor babies".
As per the persons coming here on a visa, they owe temporary allegiance to the USA by being allowed to visit, thus they would fall under WKA, however illegal alien childrens parents have no allegiance, look to Bouve arguing in 1912 that children born of illegal aliens should be granted BRC:
Quote:
Does the fact that the parents belong to a class of aliens whose allegiance the United States does not desire and whose entrance into the United States is forbidden by law affect the political status of the child? Obviously not, unless the bare legal prohibition suffices to prevent the parents
from acquiring a residence or domicile — it is immaterial which — in this country. True, the parents never acquired a municipal status by virtue of or under the immigration law ; and they never acquired a lawful domicile in the sense that they were never entitled to enter for the purpose of establishing a home. But the fact remains that they entered this country and proceeded to reside here, until their arrest, in enjoyment of every benefit which the law of the United States confers on persons lawfully resident here, and under the same duty to carry out their correlative obligations. Their temporary allegiance to the United States was complete and gave rise to reciprocal protection on the part of the state, unaffected by the fact that in order to enjoy and exercise the rights and duties incident thereto they had violated the immigration law.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 01-15-2012 at 10:54 AM..
The kids are Americans. Our tax dollars helping support her kids is just the norm when it comes to American kids born to teen parents.
I don't understand what this has to do with illegal immigration since the kids are AMERICANS and the issue is about the kids.
The kids can obviously stay if this mother doesn't want to take them home. No one is denying that. If she doesn't love them, she will abandon them here, that happens an awful lot of times. Not all parents are good parents.
However nothing prevents her from taking the US born children home with her. Nothing at all. The children are a non-issue.
The myth is that anyone suggests illegals would not attempt to use anchor children to stay in the US. Where did you hear this Eleanora? Rush told you? the Right Wing gossip line?
I would agree that motherhood at 15 is not a great idea. But should this automatically deprive the resulting child of a chance for a US education? Explain that to me.
So better to deport her with her children than a 25 year old gangbanger with two felony arrests? If you are really willing to put her at the head of the line who are you bumping off the back. Relatively fixed number get deported. If she goes someone else does not. How about the young lady freshly arrived who has no children but will soon?
And what do you propose to do with the children. Send them and we get back three likely badly educated citizens in 15 years probably in just the right mood for the gangbanger culture. Complete with a bit of a vendetta about their treatment by the US. And we get them by the millions. You looking forward to integrating those folk into our society?
You know Eleanora I think you simply have no ability to think through what you are suggesting may cause. You will then claim it was the Mexicans who screwed it all up...
Deport both her and the gang banger. Up the number of deportations so illegals will get the idea that we're a nation with laws.
There are many more worthy people who would love to immigrate to the USA. There are responsible types, educated types, people who might even create jobs or at least work in a job. We don't need this woman and we certainly don't need to move her to the front of the line ahead of much better candidates.
As far as what to do with the children - that should be her decision. Her country most definitely allows it's returning citizens to bring their children home with them, no matter that they were born in the USA.
If this woman will only keep her children if they bring her anchor baby benefits, then she's a low-life mother. If she prefers to abandon them then they are much better off without her. Threatening to abandon your children most definitely should not bring you many many rewards.
Deport both her and the gang banger. Up the number of deportations so illegals will get the idea that we're a nation with laws.
There are many more worthy people who would love to immigrate to the USA. There are responsible types, educated types, people who might even create jobs or at least work in a job. We don't need this woman and we certainly don't need to move her to the front of the line ahead of much better candidates.
As far as what to do with the children - that should be her decision. Her country most definitely allows it's returning citizens to bring their children home with them, no matter that they were born in the USA.
If this woman will only keep her children if they bring her anchor baby benefits, then she's a low-life mother. If she prefers to abandon them then they are much better off without her. Threatening to abandon your children most definitely should not bring you many many rewards.
If you doubled or tripled the number deported you would still not get to her...and I am aware of no liklihood of any such increase in resources occuring.
If the children are sent with her they are a certain problem in 15 years. If she leaves them the are also very likely a problem in 15 years. It still may not turn out well if we let her stay...but it is likely the best shot available.
If you doubled or tripled the number deported you would still not get to her...and I am aware of no liklihood of any such increase in resources occuring.
If the children are sent with her they are a certain problem in 15 years. If she leaves them the are also very likely a problem in 15 years. It still may not turn out well if we let her stay...but it is likely the best shot available.
They could easily deport her, they know right where she is, and there's nothing in the article to indicate she's ever worked a day in her life here, nothing showing that she picked lettuce for pennies. There is no good reason at all to keep this one here.
If she stays with her kids, what kind of example has she set for them? None. Especially if she's threatening to simply abandon them. That isn't love. If she does love them, she will insist they come home with her. No problem there.
Otherwise she abandons them and the taxpayers go on providing for them as we have all along. Just without her eating up their food and continuing to mooch off the system by having babies here that she cannot afford.
If she doesn't love the kids enough to bring them back home with her, then she's no kind of mother at all and the kids would do better in foster homes.
She's not teaching these kids about respecting laws, sexual responsibility and restraint, or about working for a living. She's teaching them the life of welfare handouts, letting the taxpayers provide for you, and she's teaching them to sneer at the laws of the USA.
They could easily deport her, they know right where she is, and there's nothing in the article to indicate she's ever worked a day in her life here, nothing showing that she picked lettuce for pennies. There is no good reason at all to keep this one here.
If she stays with her kids, what kind of example has she set for them? None. Especially if she's threatening to simply abandon them. That isn't love. If she does love them, she will insist they come home with her. No problem there.
Otherwise she abandons them and the taxpayers go on providing for them as we have all along. Just without her eating up their food and continuing to mooch off the system by having babies here that she cannot afford.
If she doesn't love the kids enough to bring them back home with her, then she's no kind of mother at all and the kids would do better in foster homes.
She's not teaching these kids about respecting laws, sexual responsibility and restraint, or about working for a living. She's teaching them the life of welfare handouts, letting the taxpayers provide for you, and she's teaching them to sneer at the laws of the USA.
They have a protocol. She does not qualify for deportation.
You are reaching past all good sense. You have no idea whether she worked or not. You have no idea how the father supported the family. So what you are doing is defining the limit stereotype. It is all mythical...
The decision on the home of the kids is a very difficult one. It is unlikely that any rural Mexican school will approach the quality and length of even an inner city American one. I thought the Guatamalan mother had an exceptional tradeoff keeping the kids with her until 9 or 10 and then shipping them off to friends or relatives in the US.
So wanting the best outcome for the children might well cause her to leave them.
They have a protocol. She does not qualify for deportation.
You are reaching past all good sense. You have no idea whether she worked or not. You have no idea how the father supported the family. So what you are doing is defining the limit stereotype. It is all mythical...
The decision on the home of the kids is a very difficult one. It is unlikely that any rural Mexican school will approach the quality and length of even an inner city American one. I thought the Guatamalan mother had an exceptional tradeoff keeping the kids with her until 9 or 10 and then shipping them off to friends or relatives in the US.
So wanting the best outcome for the children might well cause her to leave them.
The father -- if it's the same for all children, is in jail, he's not supporting the kids. The mother is a drop out and the article never mentioned her working which I think it would do to help justify her staying since it seems more a sob story than anything else. An unmarried girl starting a family at age 15 isn't likely going to have any kind of job that can support herself much less herself and 3 kids and very likely many more to come.
There simply is no good reason at all to keep this woman here, they can deport her, let her decide if she loves the kids or prefers to abandon them. Deport the father(s) too.
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.
