Anchor babies

[GWestphal]

I just read an article about how there are centers in California where Chinese women come to have babies so they can be citizens.

Wouldn't it be simple to say, one of your parents must be a citizen for you to become a citizen automatically when you're born. I'd even go so far as to say if your parent becomes a citizen before you turn 18 you could automatically be a citizen. I can't think of any reasons not to do something like this. Thoughts?

 

[Infohawk]

Do you mean this article?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2172072

You should have made a poll. I think most Americans would support that idea at this point,
but it's really hard to change the constitution.

 

[CanOWorms]

No thanks. Please try to assimilate into American culture. Anchor babies are welcome and punishing some child for the actions of the parents is not American.

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm confused about the term "anchor baby." I understand that having a child here makes the child a citizen, but AFAIK it does not make the parent a citizen. So what is this term "anchor" referring to?

 

[Schadenfroh]

I understand that having a child here makes the child a citizen, but AFAIK it does not make the parent a citizen. So what is this term "anchor" referring to?

http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/us...nnel=1d383e4d77d73210VgnVCM100000082ca60aRCRD

But, they have to wait for the child to become 21.

 

[Infohawk]

"Anchor baby" is a term for a child born in the United States to immigrant parents, who, as an American citizen, can later facilitate immigration for relatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

Fairly straightforward. Not to mention I assume there are enough bleeding hearts who will not take action against an illegal parent if the kid is a citizen.

 

[spidey07]

Do you mean this article?

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2172072

You should have made a poll. I think most Americans would support that idea at this point,
but it's really hard to change the constitution.

Amendment process is easy with enough state/citizen support. I can see it coming to that within the next 10-20 years. Or a case before the SCOTUS. Remember that when you vote at the state and federal level. Remember that.

As it stands I'd think you'd find little support for allowing anchor babies with the public.

 

[First]

14th amendment won't ever be changed, that's pie in the sky, it's supported by Americans and especially Hispanics, who will comprise 1 in 3 people in the U.S. by 2050. Only people who really support amendment are old white people, who will be long gone soon enough. It's like Roe v. Wade being repealed. It's fringe right-wing stuff.

 

[spidey07]

14th amendment won't ever be changed, that's pie in the sky, it's supported by Americans and especially Hispanics, who will comprise 1 in 3 people in the U.S. by 2050. Only people who really support amendment are old white people, who will be long gone soon enough. It's like Roe v. Wade being repealed. It's fringe right-wing stuff.

Right. Time is now before it's too late to save America.

 

[Jhhnn]

14th amendment won't ever be changed, that's pie in the sky, it's supported by Americans and especially Hispanics, who will comprise 1 in 3 people in the U.S. by 2050. Only people who really support amendment are old white people, who will be long gone soon enough. It's like Roe v. Wade being repealed. It's fringe right-wing stuff.

Heh. We wouldn't have needed the 14th amendment if Southern Conservatives hadn't insisted on keeping black people as slaves...

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Take-America-Back.htm

 

[spidey07]

Pay attention to Jhhnn and First. This is how the liberal thinks and what they believe. Defeat them. All emotion and feel, zero logic.

 

[Infohawk]

it's supported by Americans and especially Hispanics, who will comprise 1 in 3 people in the U.S. by 2050.

The 14th Amendment was designed so that babies of slaves would be citizens. What do you mean that it's supported by Americans? Most people are fine with the 14th amendment but if you have a poll about the specific anchor baby question I'd be interested in seeing it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...itizenship_for_children_of_illegal_immigrants

I know you don't like to read links but that one says most are against it.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Only people who really support amendment are old white people

http://www.cis.org/Minority-Views-Immigration

In contrast to the leadership of many ethnic advocacy groups, most members of minority groups think immigration is too high.
Hispanics: 56 percent said it is too high; 7 percent said too low; 14 percent just right.

Asian-Americans: 57 percent said immigration is too high; 5 percent said too low; 18 percent just right.

African-Americans: 68 percent said it is too high; 4 percent said too low; 14 percent just right.
...
When asked to choose between enforcement that would cause illegal immigrants in the country to go home or offering them a pathway to citizenship with conditions, most members of minority groups choose enforcement.

Hispanics: 52 percent support enforcement to encourage illegals to go home; 34 percent support conditional legalization.

Asian-Americans: 57 percent support enforcement; 29 percent support conditional legalization.

African-Americans: 50 percent support enforcement; 30 percent support conditional legalization.

Legal immigrants want fewer illegals, citizens (voters) want it to be more difficult for others to become citizens, this is the way it has always been, see The Social Wars in Roman history for example.

 

[Infohawk]

http://www.cis.org/Minority-Views-Immigration

Good link.

However, I don't agree on your reason for why people are generally opposed to illegal (or in this case arbitrary) immigration. Americans have always been open to immigration and they still are. But most people like rules and want them to be followed. I suspect that the idea that you can become a citizen here because you can afford a plane trip while others wait in lotteries is naturally repugnant to most people. It's about fairness.

 

[First]

The 14th Amendment was designed so that babies of slaves would be citizens. What do you mean that it's supported by Americans? Most people are fine with the 14th amendment but if you have a poll about the specific anchor baby question I'd be interested in seeing it.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...itizenship_for_children_of_illegal_immigrants

I know you don't like to read links but that one says most are against it.

And these two don't:

http://sinelson.typepad.com/susan-i...dment-birthright-citizenship-immigration.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/11/americans-split-on-changing-14th-amendment/

Fact is there is no support for amending this law, and the minor support that it might have is, of course, completely irrelevant in a discussion about amending the constitution, which requires 2/3rds ratification.

 

[Infohawk]

And these two don't:

http://sinelson.typepad.com/susan-i...dment-birthright-citizenship-immigration.html

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/08/11/americans-split-on-changing-14th-amendment/

Fact is there is no support for amending this law, and the minor support that it might have is, of course, completely irrelevant in a discussion about amending the constitution, which requires 2/3rds ratification.

Your second link doesn't really support your position. I also suspect that people might become more open to the idea as more extreme stories come out about people visiting to have babies (which you apparently don't even believe happens).

But ultimately I agree with you. I think it's unlikely, though not impossible, that the constitution will be changed. We just disagree about the consequences.

Next up for you is furiously searching for links to discredit schad's link.

 

[First]

Your second link doesn't really support your position.

It does, actually, since 51-49 is pretty clear. Not supermajority level support, of course, but support nonetheless.

I also suspect that people might become more open to the idea as more extreme stories come out about people visiting to have babies (which you apparently don't even believe happens).

No, I know it happens, it just happens basically never in the grand scheme of millions of immigrants. That's just a fact, people come here to work and a lot of times they have families. They don't come here to have babies and leave. There's no evidence this happens in any meaningfully consistent way that it should be brought up in a discussion.

Next up for you is furiously searching for links to discredit schad's link.

schad's link doesn't really say anything particularly meaningful about this 14th amendment discussion.

 

[Infohawk]

It does, actually, since 51-49 is pretty clear. Not supermajority level support, of course, but support nonetheless.



No, I know it happens, it just happens basically never in the grand scheme of millions of immigrants. That's just a fact, people come here to work and a lot of times they have families. They don't come here to have babies and leave. There's no evidence this happens in any meaningfully consistent way that it should be brought up in a discussion.



schad's link doesn't really say anything particularly meaningful about this 14th amendment discussion.

Do you know what they mean when they say + or - three percentage points in a poll? It's split.

You claim people don't come here to have babies and leave. I'm going with the multiple news outlets that say it does happen. The idea is that the kids are going to come here when they're adults and they're going to sponsor their parents to come in. It's no that hard to understand and not that implausible. Honestly you're bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Something comes up that contradicts your worldview and you claim it's simply not true.

I think it's pretty obvious that Schad's link shows that your "anyone who disagrees with me on immigration is a right-wing fringe xenophobe" garbage is just that. If anything it's bigoted for you to claim that a latino wouldn't be for tightening up some immigration rules. Latinos aren't some homogenous group who think all their distant cousins should pile in here.

 

[Lemon law]

Well well well, in that case, ole spidey should worship ole Pete Wilson, the very GOP rascal Governor that guaranteed that California and all its electoral votes will never go GOP in a national election.

 

[BoomerD]

IMO, it's presumptuous as hell to think that the parents, legal or illegal, want US citizenship for their children. While I'm sure MOST do, what about the parents who plan to stay a few years then return to their native country? Would those children automatically be granted citizenship there as well?

IMO, children of immigrants should be citizens of their parent's native country. If the parents are from different countries then the parents decide which one, although the mother should have the stronger claim.
HOWEVER, if those parents are LEGAL immigrants and want US citizenship for their children born in the USA, they should be able to apply for that citizenship and it be granted automatically.
If the parents are ILLEGAL immigrants, the child does not qualify for US citizenship.

It's often been argued that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" in the 14th amendment is a disqualifier for the children of illegal immigrants. Since the parents have not "placed themselves under the jurisdiction" of the USA by being her illegally, their children don't get the protection afforded by the 14th amendment.

I know it'd be a VERY difficult fight to ever get the wording in the Constitution changed to specify WHO is protected by this, and I'm sure I'll be long dead before it ever happens, (if ever) but if it came to a vote today, I'd support making the change.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

 

[1prophet]

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/l.../nations-granting-birthright-citizenship.html

Nations Granting Birthright Citizenship

Birthright Citizenship is the automatic granting of citizenship to children born within a nation's borders or territories. The United States and Canada are the only developed nations in the world to still offer Birthright Citizenship to tourists and illegal aliens. 8 U.S.C. § 1401 : US Code - Section 1401 (1952) grants automatic citizenship to any person born in the United States.
The following are among the nations repealing Birthright Citizenship in recent years:

• Australia (2007)
• New Zealand (2005)
• Ireland (2005)
• France (1993)
• India (1987)
• Malta (1989)
• UK (1983)
• Portugal (1981)

YES

Canada
United States

NO
Andorra
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Bermuda
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Faroe Islands
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Holy See
Hong Kong
Iceland
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Japan
Liechtenstein
Luxembourg
Malta
Monaco
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
San Marino
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
South Korea
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
United Kingdom

Is the US and Canada behind the times or are all these other developed countries Xenophobes?

 

[First]

Do you know what they mean when they say + or - three percentage points in a poll? It's split.

It may or may not be. I get it.

You claim people don't come here to have babies and leave.

No I'm not. Read. Carefully.

I'm going with the multiple news outlets that say it does happen. The idea is that the kids are going to come here when they're adults and they're going to sponsor their parents to come in. It's no that hard to understand and not that implausible. Honestly you're bordering on intellectual dishonesty. Something comes up that contradicts your worldview and you claim it's simply not true.

And please explain to me why I should be scared of a person born and raised in the U.S.A. sponsoring their foreign born mother or father? Why is this bad? I'd love to hear your, no doubt very odd, reasoning.

I think it's pretty obvious that Schad's link shows that your "anyone who disagrees with me on immigration is a right-wing fringe xenophobe" garbage is just that. If anything it's bigoted for you to claim that a latino wouldn't be for tightening up some immigration rules.

We aren't talking about immigration rules. We're talking about the 14th amendment, which deals with U.S. citizenship. Keep up.

 

[Infohawk]

It may or may not be. I get it.

Bullshit. You said "since 51-49 is pretty clear." In fact, it's not a clear decision either way.

And please explain to me why I should be scared of a person born and raised in the U.S.A. sponsoring their foreign born mother or father? Why is this bad? I'd love to hear your, no doubt very odd, reasoning.

You have no reason to be "scared" of someone sponsoring their parents. Whether it's fiscally responsible on a large scale is another matter. Old people tend to use infrastructure and social services and not put anything into them. It's one thing if they've been paying taxes all their lives.

We aren't talking about immigration rules. We're talking about the 14th amendment, which deals with U.S. citizenship. Keep up.

Ok, I must have misunderstood you. You think that those who are for changing the 14th amendment are xenophobic bigots but you think those who want to crackdown on illegals generally are nice people of all colors? Riiiight...

 

[spidey07]

It may or may not be. I get it.



No I'm not. Read. Carefully.



And please explain to me why I should be scared of a person born and raised in the U.S.A. sponsoring their foreign born mother or father? Why is this bad? I'd love to hear your, no doubt very odd, reasoning.



We aren't talking about immigration rules. We're talking about the 14th amendment, which deals with U.S. citizenship. Keep up.

Mind of a liberal here folks. And this fucker can vote. Keep that in mind before you say "nah, I gotta work".

VOTE!

 

[the DRIZZLE]

We don't need to change the 14th Amendment. We just need laws that say the parents don't get to stay to raise the child. If you want to come here illegally, give birth, spend the next 5 years in jail then be deported while your child is raised in foster care be my guest.