Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: doug from upland
"Because he was born here, Arellano’s son is a U.S. citizen. He’s entitled to stay here. If we say he can stay but his mother has to go back to Mexico, what kind of a choice is that for a young boy?"

Shouldn't be a hard choice. The kid should choose to be with his mother if he was any kind of a son. Unless he was being abused, of course.

Anchor babies, though citizens by federal law, is contingent on the interpretation of the 14th amendment. There is still debate going on concerning the 'subject to the jurisdiction' clause. The mother, according to some, (and I agree) cannot be subject to federal jurisdiction until she becomes a citizen as provided by law. Therefore, her child should not be eligible for citizenship either. IMO.

10 posted on 08/21/2007 7:58:38 PM PDT by Eastbound
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]


To: Eastbound

I agree, this anchor baby stuff is ridiculous. I actually think repealing that interpretation would slow down illegal immigration considerably as women would have less reason to want to come over the border. Furthermore, the judges would have less reason to prohibit sending them back. Now, you get the anchor baby and likely as not you get the parent(s) who get to stay despite the fact that their first act upon entering the US was to break Federal law.


11 posted on 08/21/2007 8:24:10 PM PDT by Roy Tucker ("You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality"--Ayn Rand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson