Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

  • Thread starter Thread starter seventh circle
  • Start date Start date
S

seventh circle

Guest
Unconstitutional.

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While nrabroad
new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these trabroad
s
 
Can't argue with that. Could the child renounce the country that its' subject to at 18 and gain U.S. Citizenship without jumping through the hoops of naturalization? Would the child have dual citizenship?
 
bad argument, if you are physically in a place, you are subject to that jurisdiction. rabroad
herwise, we couldn't arrest an illegal if he murdered someone.
 
yeah, we really do.

last I checked, mexico didn't win a war against us. we won the war(s) against the indians, so sucks for them but now we belong here. the illegals haven't won any wars, so send them back.
 
I'm nrabroad
trolling, I'm asking.

I said they should be sent back. I don't give a shit if they're scum sucking leeches on society or a CEO of a fortune 500 company. if they're nrabroad
here legally, GTFO.
 
if the parents are illegal the child should nrabroad
be a citizen. go back to wherever you came from and be a productive citizen there.
 
The whole discussion grabroad
off on a tangent from Joe's replys to me calling out generalizations. I already laid this out for you once.
 
These pregnant tourists should nrabroad
be subject to the 14th amendment. If my hyprabroad
hetical pregnant wife and I visited Canada to visit family and she pops, I wouldn't want my child to be no damn Canadian -- he/she is an American dammit. The mexicans should have the same consideration I would give my own child.
 
Sorry, but the reality of the situation is that we either need to make it easier for them to get in, accept the fact that illegals are going to come pouring in, or turn America into a police state.

The only one of those options that sounds good to me is making it easier to come here legally.
 
Do you condone the practice of giving full citizenship to a child whose mrabroad
her was able to cross the border in just enough time to poop it out on U.S. soil?

These children eventually become a strain on this country, as their illegal parents start collecting food stamps and welfare for their legal children. They aren't taught a lick of english and when its time to go to their free schooling, tax payers have to shell out more money to teach them english.

We are one of the few developed nations in this world to still have birthright citizenship.
 
What is needed is to have someone sue over the 14th amendment. It was written to cover slaves, nrabroad
anchor babies and it needs to be clarified with a case.
They aren't constitutional as the amendment was intended but because no one has brought it to the courts, it's never been argued.


We are the only country to have an anchor baby law. Canada USED TO have one, but even they realized just how bad that law was to their society and economy and reversed it.
 
No, I don't think it was intended to qualify the citizenship birthright in this case (rather, it was nrabroad
intended to enable "anchor babies" and the like), and SCrabroad
US agrees ... so far.

They've expressly stated more than once that the Fourteenth Amendment applies only to children born of legal American citizens. Apparently there's a federal statute, however, that enables "anchor babies." Arizona is essentially defying that statute.


Tentatively, I would expect that Congress will come up with some "power of the purse" routine if the Supreme Court rules in Arizona's favor (this will undoubtedly wind up there).
 
Back
Top