As I said, ad hominems are not helpful. It’s an easy way out to say that I’m warping the facts and that therefore you don’t need to deal with what I’m saying. Your choice if that’s what you want to do. I just don’t think this is productive at all.
I am not warping the facts. My statement is correct. I am simply not dealing with the child’s rights as a US citizen. The question to me is whether the parents obtain any rights from having an “anchor baby” or not, not whether the child has or doesn’t have rights as a US citizen. Maybe some people on these forums think a child born to illegal immigrants in the US should not be a US citizen. I disagree, but I’m not discussing this as you are entitled to your opinion. I’m just simply making my comment from the mainstream and well established common law view that a child born in these circumstances is indeed a US citizen.
The parents obtain many rights not to be deported. Are these rights written into law? No
But all the time parents are not deported because of anchor babies.
These illegal aliens have de facto rights not to be deported when they have their anchor baby or babies. Once more, this is not law but this is what takes place in the real world
Do a few unlucky ones get deported despite anchor babies? Yes! But this is rare
Why don't you talk to some of the poor Mexicans in NYC and tell them your anchor baby theory?
>I’m just simply making my comment from the mainstream and well established common law view that a child born in these circumstances is indeed a US citizen.<
Does Mexico grant the same citizenship courtesy to ‘foreign visitors’? No, they don’t and I believe that they are correct in not doing so.
I value American citizenship very highly and I don’t think it should be granted to any pregnant woman who slips actoss the border to give birth.
Well, you don't get to ignore the child's rights. Your statement was that an anchor baby was not a logical term as the parents get no benefits from having a baby as a US citizen. That is false. Period. The parents can collect SSI and other benefits in the name of the child, as the child can claim them as a citizen (and many illegals and legals do). So the parents DO gain a benefit (because the baby sure isn't the one spending the food stamps, money, etc.). Your assertion is demonstrably false. Sorry, but you don't get to pick the context of this debate, especially when you ignore pertinent evidence...
Wrong; Anchor babies are not found in 'common law'. They result from a misinterpretation of a specific amendment to the Constitution meant to assure the rights of former slaves. They result from years and years of our disregarding border sovereignty in order to allow free intercourse between closely related border regions - and the craven abuse of that privilege by a more recent blight of urban jetsam that has proven highly profitable to the mexican government. The concept of dual citizenship in this relationship is a tool of the mexican government that the USA should firmly restore to the "not recognized" bin - by revoking US privileges to anyone claiming duality. The Fourteenth Amendment should similarly be restored to the original intent by stripping citizenship from those born here of even one illegal parent.
You are both a part of FR and in this country legally and I respect both but:
(1) Yes you are being overly sensitive.
(2) After ten years here you should have noted that English is the primary language and the language you would use in any shop in NY other than as a politeness to someone else who lacked proficiency. It IS discourteous to speak Spanish among yourselves in a crowd of 'other speakers' when you are capable of speaking their principal tongue and have been granted the privilege of living and working here.
(3) As others here have noted, having gone through the hoops and apparently having skills that are of value to your US employer, I cannot believe that you are concerned about one person in NYC and silent on the hordes of criminals that granted her license to make an equally discourteous comment to you.
(4) "Mijo" and "Mija" (sp?), "Nino" and "Nina" certainly do denote gender and that whole commentary is gratuitous.
I'd get deeper into the daily societal impact of illegal immigration on US citizens but I might have relatives reading this; happy to FR mail it to you if you need a case study.