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

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist
Good reason for him to duck the question ~ the law is actually murky. Two cases were decided a long time ago but they are very situation specific and we are not facing the problems addressed in those cases.

Let me give you an idea of what goes on. A tourist comes to the US with his 4 kids and his pregnant wife. Let's say that it's all legal and on the up and up. She gives birth.

The law here requires that they ADD THE CHILD TO THE FAMILY VISA LIST.

Yup, kid's born here yet he has to have a visa just as if he were a foreign citizen and not a US citizen.

US citizens, BTW, do not require a visa to visit the US.

At the same time if the family came here without a visa, or equivalent, and the situation is otherwise identical ~ they are tourists ~ sojourners ~ not permanent residents, there are those, e.g federal district courts, ICE analysts, and so on who will tell you the kid is now a citizen!

Which means, of course, that the law requires more of legal visitors than of illegal visitors, and not only that, the legal visitors' newborns ARE NOT US citizens, yet the illegal visitors' newborns ARE US citizens.

Obviously we need some changes in the law ~ and fast, and at the same time we need some friendly lawsuits to take this mess to court and ask WTF.

My own thoughts are that the immigration offices throughout the country have been in error by identifying childen born here of illegal aliens as citizens ~ and doing so by simply failing to note that the law still requires them to ADD THE KID TO THE FAMILY VISA.

We could immediately rescind the citizenship of several million "anchor babies" among other things.

4 posted on 01/31/2008 6:53:16 PM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: muawiyah
" . . . the law requires more of legal visitors than of illegal visitors, and not only that, the legal visitors' newborns ARE NOT US citizens, yet the illegal visitors' newborns ARE US citizens."

Excellent observation . . . and to paraphrase Mr. Bumble (Oliver Twist): If the law thus suppose th, then the law is an ass and an idiot.

7 posted on 01/31/2008 6:58:00 PM PST by Vigilanteman (Are there any men left in Washington? Or are there only cowards? Ahmad Shah Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: muawiyah
We could immediately rescind the citizenship of several million "anchor babies" among other things.

Constitution of the United states, Article I, Section 9; Clause 3:

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

As frustrating as it may sound, a law rescinding citizenship for anchor babies would be considered ex post facto, and declared unconstitutional.

14 posted on 01/31/2008 7:22:39 PM PST by El Conservador ("Liberalism is the application of childish emotion to complex issues." - MrB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies ]

To: muawiyah
My own thoughts are that the immigration offices throughout the country have been in error by identifying childen born here of illegal aliens as citizens

Bingo!

Congress has the authority to make immigration regular, NOT decide what those immigrants are.

The Founders referred to People IN the States but not of the State to be denizens, BTW. It was supposed to be left up to the State as to whether or not these denizens deserved to be Citizens of the State.

------

Since giving the 14th Amendment the ability of the federal government to extend outside its areas of enumerated jurisdiction would itself be unconstitutional, one must wonder if this 'error' was purely accidental.

31 posted on 02/01/2008 7:15:36 AM PST by MamaTexan (** ~ Congress has NO authority to 'create' citizenship ~ **)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | 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