Posted on 09/13/2010 5:16:18 AM PDT by Kaslin
Americans have never given benefits to people who do things illegally, - is a better moral argument.
Exactly!
Section 1 is a classic loophole in the law that needs to be closed immediately by the Supreme court.
There is nothing wrong with discussing the fiscal impact of adding 400,000 anchor babies every year, most of whom use Medicaid, food stamps, etc. When you try to make good public policy, you need reliable data. Resources spent on the children of illegals is morally wrong as well. Right now, the children are LEGAL under our existing law.
**************
That one line settles the whole argument.
Illegal aliens are NOT subject to U.S. jurisdiction and therefore their children are NOT instant citizens. A baby born to a citizen of foreign allegiance is likewise a foreign citizen, no matter where the birth takes place, whether in Boston or on the moon!
Does a child born to the Swedish ambassador to the U.N. become a U.S. citizen if the kid was born in New York City? I think not.
Congress needs to pass a "Sense of the Congress" resolution to settle this. An Amendment to the Constitution is not required.
The first immigration processing facility was opened at Castle Garden, in southern Manhattan in 1855. Not every entrant was admitted. By 1890, the number of immigrants had grown so large that the much larger and more famous facility was opened at Ellis Island. Even in its heyday, Ellis Island rejected about 5% of all prospective immigrants. The most common reasons were disease, criminal background or the strong possibility that the immigrant would become a public charge.
There is no logic to sustain the contention that the growing anchor baby problem was accepted as an end run around even the fairly lenient immigration screening rules in effect during the Ellis Island era or even the more lenient Castle Garden Era.
It is true, however, that immigration from Mexico has had historically lenient status. President Taft and Wilson looked the other way when Mexican refugees flowed over our borders as a result of the 1910-20 revolution and subsequent civil war there plus our own desire to cope with labor shortages as a result of World War I. But this was followed by aggressive deportation in the 1930's as a result of the economic contractions of that era.
The pendulum swung back during World War II, when FDR's policies did a U-Turn to cope with labor shortages from that war. But again, within a decade, those shortages disappeared and President Eisenhower moved to deport those same illegals with an equal or even greater degree of success as FDR.
The anchor baby thing didn't even become a topic until 1965, almost a century after the 14th amendment was ratified, when Ted Kennedy's loosey-goosey immigration law was enacted and expanded by Earl Warren's activist supreme court.
==============================================
Man ordered to repay $3M in Calif employment fraud
San Francisco Chronicle | June 26, 2010
FR Posted June 26, 2010 by artichokegrower
A former Marysville resident has been sentenced to prison and ordered to pay back $3 million in fraudulently obtained unemployment compensation. U.S. Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner says 31-year-old Manuel Mejia Ordonez was sentenced Friday to eight years and one month in prison for conspiracy to commit mail fraud and identity theft. (Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
How does a citizen of Mexico make $3 million in unemployment claims? By establishing multiple identities. The guy----Manuel Mejia Ordonez----got eight years for conspiracy to commit mail fraud........and identity theft.
But I thought they come here to work? :)
Right now, the children are LEGAL under our existing law.
__________________________________________
No, actually right now there is no law that makes them legal..
The 14th Amendment only makes the children of black former slaves legal American citizens ...
It was not passed to make the children of illegal aliens legal citizens..
Even the children of foreign diplomats here legally as our guests cant get American citizenshiip merely by being born here..
and the children of NATIVE AMERICANS were not included either..
That took another law later..
Guess what’s in those backpacks they bring across the border?
It’s instructions from Mexico on how to drain the US Treasury.
They don't need those, the federal government advertises to them how to drain the system just like they advertise that they (illegals) are entitled to minimum wage and overtime.
The author never read the 1996 immigration reform.
Birthright citizenship and anchor baby are two DIFFERENT legal issues.
Custody follows the parents of the minor not the other way around. When illegal pararents are deported the citizen child goes with them. (the citizen can return at 18) but then there is no claim for the offspring that were born outside the USA for citizenship.
I am very well acquainted with the legal issues. Congress will have to pass a law revoking birthright citizenship. It will be challenged and go to SCOTUS. If SCOTUS upholds the law, then it is over. If not, then a Constitutional amenmendment will be necessary if we want to end it. I do.
Sorry, but they are legal under existing law, i.e., U S Code. They are given all of the rights and entitlements of US citizens whether it be passports, SSNs, food stamps, etc. That has been the case for decades.
______________________________________________
Yes its been the case...
and No its not legal...
Could you please elaborate on the differances of birthright citizenship and anchor babies. And could you also explain the two different legal arguments.
I have not heard of this before.
thank you in advance
Of course it is legal. Words have meanings. We recognize birthright citizenship in this country. The law as passed by Congress specifically authorizes it. I have been involved in the passport inssuance process. If a person has a valid birth certificate showing that he/she was born on US soil, that person is deemed a US citizen except in some rare circumstances having to do with accredited diplomats and some others.
Until the law is changed by Congress, birthright citizenship still is the law of the land. Stop trying to make the ridiculous argument that it is "not legal." Read the law damn it.
8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401: Nationals and citizens of United States at birth
Anchor Baby and Birthright Citizenship are two seperate legal issues:
Birthright Citizenship is simply citizenship which is obtained simply by being born in the United States or territories. It is a personal legality and has nothing to do with the family.
Anchor Baby is the old concept where “custody followed the citizen”. This was eliminated in 1996 with the immigration reforms eliminated this. Now, under the law, custody follows the parents. Thus the minor citizen goes back with the deported parents.
Bills like the “Dream Act” function as blanket amnesty by having “cutody follow the minor” of any child in the USA and in public school. Citizen or no citizen.
Another thing to remember is that in order to claim birthright citizenship from a US born citizen, the us born citizen has to have lived in the USA for ten years.
all this is outlined in USCIS.gov (formerly INS) The media pushes the meme in order to have the fiction of family separation which is a legal fiction for immigration lawyer and paralegal services.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.