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.
Pro lifers define "life" as at the point of conception (sperm meets egg). Once this happens, there is a baby and they are entitled to the same rights as any other person. Well using this argument, lets say a couple from Country X comes to the U.S. for a few weeks vacation and they can show that their child was conceived while in the U.S. Since this child was a person at conception, should they not also be a U.S. citizen at conception entitled to all rights that are currently bestowed on any other person currently "born" in the U.S. ? I'm just curious how pro life advocates think "anchor babies" should be handled going forward. Lets assume none of our current immigration policies will be touched which is a pretty good assumption based on what I'm hearing and seeing.
Pro lifers define "life" as at the point of conception (sperm meets egg). Once this happens, there is a baby and they are entitled to the same rights as any other person. Well using this argument, lets say a couple from Country X comes to the U.S. for a few weeks vacation and they can show that their child was conceived while in the U.S. Since this child was a person at conception, should they not also be a U.S. citizen at conception entitled to all rights that are currently bestowed on any other person currently "born" in the U.S. ? I'm just curious how pro life advocates think "anchor babies" should be handled going forward. Lets assume none of our current immigration policies will be touched which is a pretty good assumption based on what I'm hearing and seeing.
Well, I consider the anchor baby law a loop hole in the system that is abused, so the point is irrelevant in my opinoin. That is, big deal if you had your baby here, it doesn't give you a free ride, please drive through.
I could be wrong, but I believe that prolifers believe that a human life has been conceived, not an American life. Or French, or Swiss or whatever.
Most of them think that that hujman life is not worth saving, if the father of the fetus is its own grandfather, or a rapist. They have trouble explaining that to me.
I could be wrong, but I believe that prolifers believe that a human life has been conceived, not an American life. Or French, or Swiss or whatever.
Once you have established that a fertilized egg is a person, how much more of stretch to say this person is a citizen of X country. Trust me, the argument will be made and the wussies that we are...
I think this is a brilliant observation. I am sure that, technically, if our laws accepted the premise that the fetus is to be considered a human being, which in some cases I hear it is, forsure those fetii should be considered American citizens.
I would think they would have to prove, though, that they were on our soil when the conception happened.
Good thinking, Prim2007!
Pro lifers define "life" as at the point of conception (sperm meets egg). Once this happens, there is a baby and they are entitled to the same rights as any other person. Well using this argument, lets say a couple from Country X comes to the U.S. for a few weeks vacation and they can show that their child was conceived while in the U.S. Since this child was a person at conception, should they not also be a U.S. citizen at conception entitled to all rights that are currently bestowed on any other person currently "born" in the U.S. ? I'm just curious how pro life advocates think "anchor babies" should be handled going forward. Lets assume none of our current immigration policies will be touched which is a pretty good assumption based on what I'm hearing and seeing.
Well, because they are citizens of Country X, and were only on vacation in the US, the baby would be a citizen of Country X. The same goes if your in the military and something like that happens.
hmmm, so if couple x went to the uk or france for a vacation and can prove their pregnancy occured during their time there....could their baby then claim dual citizenship and membership in the european union?
hmmm, so if couple x went to the uk or france for a vacation and can prove their pregnancy occured during their time there....could their baby then claim dual citizenship and membership in the european union?
Possibly. That's the complex world we're living in and becoming more complex everyday as the definition of life and humans (cloning is on it's way) continue to evolve.
Well, because they are citizens of Country X, and were only on vacation in the US, the baby would be a citizen of Country X. The same goes if your in the military and something like that happens.
Some Mexicans, I am told, cross the border just to have a baby here, and then go back home. As long as the kid was born here, its a citizen and entitled, even if the parents are not.
So, if the fetus has 'personhood' just like the infant and neither stay in the US, they would both be citizens.
Hey, I want that law changed, but as it is, right now, anyone can come here for a vacation and stay to deliver in our hospitals and go home and that kid is an American.
Countries with national health care and other such social programs would NEVER allow this. You could live in some of those countries all your life and never given the rights of citizenship. They just cannot afford to support the world. We, on the other hand, give our own people very little and spread what little that is it to anyone who chooses to come here.
I guess we have the Christian attitude, but I would rather increased benefits to us than others. I am just greedy.
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.