Those Crazy Arizonans

[dbacks fan]

Well we are at it again in an attempt to cut down on illegal immigration by taking the 14th Amendment to the Supreme Court for clarification, and possible changes in an effort to eliminate "Anchor Baby" syndrome.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/05/20110105birthright-citizenship-bill-arizona-lawmakers-introduced05-ON.html

[guido911]

Well we are at it again in an attempt to cut down on illegal immigration by taking the 14th Amendment to the Supreme Court for clarification, and possible changes in an effort to eliminate "Anchor Baby" syndrome.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/05/20110105birthright-citizenship-bill-arizona-lawmakers-introduced05-ON.html

Oklahoma along with several other states are following suit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/05/AR2011010503134.html

[Red Arrow]

I don't believe the USA prohibits "undocumented" parents from taking their children with them when the "undocumented" parents are forced to go home.

[dbacks fan]

I don't believe the USA prohibits "undocumented" parents from taking their children with them when the "undocumented" parents are forced to go home.

http://www.fairus.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=16535&security=1601&news_iv_ctrl=1007

The issue is most don't go back. They have to commit a crime to be put in a position to be sent back, and 90% of the crimes commited are misdemeanors, and since they have infant children that are born here they get sent through the revolving door know as the US border and are right back in a short period of time.

Call it a "loophole" or an "interpritation" of the 14th, it's based on a decision from 1868 regarding slaves and thier children as well as enimies or agents against the US. It's an issue that was never dreamed of when the amendment was written, and from what I have read has never been challenged especially in the light of people who have sought out the US as sanctuary from persicusion in their country of origin. This has been a part of political and war refugees for years, wether it be from Cuba, Bosnia, Haiti, Slovakia, and many others. Yes I realize that most if not all of those came here with the intent to become US citizens, the problem now is they come across to have children to bypass the system.

[we vs us]

So wait.  According to current interpretations of the law, so called anchor babies can't sponsor citizenship for their parents until the kid turns 21?  So the wait till legality is more than two decades, from conception of the child till eligibility?  Not to mention the length of the process of naturalization itself, which sometimes takes years.  

Why would anyone go to that amount of trouble?

More importantly, do we actually know if anyone goes to the trouble?  Or do we just think they go to the trouble? 

[Red Arrow]

So wait.  According to current interpretations of the law, so called anchor babies can't sponsor citizenship for their parents until the kid turns 21?

I knew we could count on you.

I don't know specifically if a minor can sponsor citizenship.  There are a lot of things minors cannot do that adults can.

[we vs us]

I knew we could count on you.

Thanks.  Just here to clarify current law before we all get our panties in a twist and start agitating to amend the constitution and all.

It's actually policy, by the way . . . if you look it up, the "anchor" part of the anchor baby thing can't happen till the baby turns 21, so their parents have to be awfully patient people to hope that the fruit of their loins will also be their path to naturalization.  21 years (and change) later.

It would seem to me that why make such an elaborate, time consuming plot when you can just jump the fence and start living the dream right away?  But that's just me. I've never been a particularly long term thinker.

[Red Arrow]

Thanks.  Just here to clarify current law before we all get our panties in a twist and start agitating to amend the constitution and all.

It's actually policy, by the way . . . if you look it up, the "anchor" part of the anchor baby thing can't happen till the baby turns 21, so their parents have to be awfully patient people to hope that the fruit of their loins will also be their path to naturalization.  21 years (and change) later.

It would seem to me that why make such an elaborate, time consuming plot when you can just jump the fence and start living the dream right away?  But that's just me. I've never been a particularly long term thinker.

So are you saying, except for the impracticality of it, that we can send "them all" back to their home country but their kid(s) born in the USA could stay if the parents wanted to leave them here.  Or, the parents could take their USA born kid back to the parents' country of origin.  That's actually the way I interpret it.

Any of our lawyers (that didn't get their degree from Holiday Inn Express) care to weigh in?

[dbacks fan]

So are you saying, except for the impracticality of it, that we can send "them all" back to their home country but their kid(s) born in the USA could stay if the parents wanted to leave them here.  Or, the parents could take their USA born kid back to the parents' country of origin.  That's actually the way I interpret it.

Any of our lawyers (that didn't get their degree from Holiday Inn Express) care to weigh in?

Yes, as it has been interperated here in Arizona, that if the parents are here illegaly they can be deported, but the children born here to the parents of illegals can stay in the US, because of the interpertation they are American citizens by birth in the US.

This whole thing of "birth right" and "born in the US and needing to choose nationality of children born to foreign parents" has become diluted and perversed over many years. I'm not against someone who is a US citizen that is married to a foriegn national that has not completed naturalization, but if you are in the US, legally or illegaly, and neither parent is not a US citizen, you should not be granted US citizenship, you should declare the citizenship of your country of origin.

[Conan71]

Thanks.  Just here to clarify current law before we all get our panties in a twist and start agitating to amend the constitution and all.

It's actually policy, by the way . . . if you look it up, the "anchor" part of the anchor baby thing can't happen till the baby turns 21, so their parents have to be awfully patient people to hope that the fruit of their loins will also be their path to naturalization.  21 years (and change) later.

It would seem to me that why make such an elaborate, time consuming plot when you can just jump the fence and start living the dream right away?  But that's just me. I've never been a particularly long term thinker.

It's not like they are sitting around twiddling their thumbs bored for 21 years.  They are mowing lawns or picking fruit, drinking Tecate, making tamales, and making more anchor babies while they wait.

[dbacks fan]

It's not like they are sitting around twiddling their thumbs bored for 21 years.  They are mowing lawns or picking fruit, drinking Tecate, making tamales, and making more anchor babies while they wait.

You are right, once they are able to enroll their children in school, and with that enrollment they can get legal rental agreements, and utilities in thier name because of the child being in preschool, or kindergarden in a public school system, they, the parents, become elegible for support from the state and the fed for benefits.

[cynical]

Yes, as it has been interperated here in Arizona, that if the parents are here illegaly they can be deported, but the children born here to the parents of illegals can stay in the US, because of the interpertation they are American citizens by birth in the US.

This whole thing of "birth right" and "born in the US and needing to choose nationality of children born to foreign parents" has become diluted and perversed over many years. I'm not against someone who is a US citizen that is married to a foriegn national that has not completed naturalization, but if you are in the US, legally or illegaly, and neither parent is not a US citizen, you should not be granted US citizenship, you should declare the citizenship of your country of origin.

The problem is that the 14th Amendment is clear and unambiguous.  It means exactly what it says and has not become "diluted" or "perversed" over many years.  Any person born in the U.S. is a citizen.  You don't like it? Change it.  There's a procedure to do so that thankfully is very cumbersome.  The slavery context would only be admissible to resolve ambiguity.  Since the language creating birthright citizenship is not ambiguous, the context is irrelevant.  Those who drafted the amendment could have easily worded it more narrowly but chose not to.

State legislators such as Randy Terrill who dream up schemes to allow states to "opt out" of constitutional principles are just pulling your leg. The contextual argument is just a false political talking point and wedge issue to rile up voters. 

[swake]

Yes, as it has been interperated here in Arizona, that if the parents are here illegaly they can be deported, but the children born here to the parents of illegals can stay in the US, because of the interpertation they are American citizens by birth in the US.

This whole thing of "birth right" and "born in the US and needing to choose nationality of children born to foreign parents" has become diluted and perversed over many years. I'm not against someone who is a US citizen that is married to a foriegn national that has not completed naturalization, but if you are in the US, legally or illegaly, and neither parent is not a US citizen, you should not be granted US citizenship, you should declare the citizenship of your country of origin.

What country of origin? The parents are from another country, not the child. That child may well have never even been to that country.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Red said;
I don't believe the USA prohibits "undocumented" parents from taking their children with them when the "undocumented" parents are forced to go home.


Got me started wondering if the parents went home, would the children then be the illegal aliens there?  And would that country allow them in?

[nathanm]

possible changes in an effort to eliminate "Anchor Baby" syndrome.

Anchor baby syndrome? You do realize that it's completely made up, right? Being the parent of a minor child citizen doesn't help an illegal alien gain legal status. The child can't sponsor the parent until they are 18 (or possibly 21, I'm not positive..they do have to be an adult). Even then, they have to have the funds to support the parent seeking legal status. If the parent gets caught, the parent gets deported after legal process determines that they are not a citizen.

And the parent is still not eligible for public support. The child gets it, but the parent does not. If they're spending the money on themselves, that's a felony for which they can be detained until deportation. Generally speaking, a suspected illegal immigrant with ties to the community can be released until their deportation proceedings are complete unless they're accused of a felony. Why? Because sometimes US citizens have deportation proceedings begun against them. Same reason we have bail in criminal cases.

There are plenty of things in this world (even just relating to immigration!) to be upset about without making up new ones.

I don't quite understand why people have a problem with citizenship by birth. It's not as if the child did anything wrong.