Illegal immigrant parents might have to leave disabled toddler

[Heracles 417]

Sounds to me like they WANTED an anchor and scored big with the genetic disease.

Jeez yes! The current policy of having a child born on US soil and automatically becoming a citizen is one of many things that need to be changed. If both parents are here illegally, that should not automatically qualify the child to be a US citizen. That child should only be the citizen of the country where their illegal parents have originated. It's time to cut the anchoring incentive

Yep.

They recently passed a law like that in Australia. One of the parents has to be Australian otherwise the child is not granted citizenship.

Otherwise people could simply fly here during a pregnancy and have the child here. Bam the child is American. Therefore the parents would be egible to apply for GC soon after..

Edited July 12, 2007 by Infidel

[Addie_Goodvibes 0]

Here is where the article lost any and all credibility:

But anti-immigration activists say the case argues against the current policy that grants automatic citizenship to everyone born in the United States.

I do not take seriously any report in any medium that refuses to separate lawful immigration from illegal immigration.

I agree, So many Advocates of Amnesty like to group immigration, immigrants with Illegal Immigration without making a distinction between the two. then make claims that those who are for Legal immigration & enforcement of current Immigration laws are in some way "anti-Immigration" #######?

These people knowingly entered the USA Illegally disobeyed the law, continually and ignored the laws of immigration, baby or not they SHOULD BE DEPORTED! They obviously do not care enough for the child to bring the child intot hsi world when they are more stable or here legally, if you can not afford to take care of kids Do Not have them, If you are not legaggly in the USA and are livng in the shadows with a possibility of one day being deported Do NOT have children and further risk their happiness & Health because of selfish blatant disregard for the Federal Laws.

Birthright is definatly an Issue but the laws need to be re-written. To not include babies of Illegal Immigrants.

The parents of this child are left to cope with the uncertainty and financial burden of their complicated situation BROUGHT ON BY THEIR OWN DISRESPECT & DISREGARD FOR THE LAW AND THEIR OWN CHILD>

Edited July 12, 2007 by Addie_Goodvibes

[Twomoles 8]

Birthright is definatly an Issue but the laws need to be re-written. To not include babies of Illegal Immigrants.

And for the legal ones to have choice with parents citizenship they want for a child,

Not everyone want USA citizenship, I want for my child my citizenship.

[Addie_Goodvibes 0]

Good lord.

What difference does it make if that child is born to EWI parents, or USC's, or Martians for that matter?

To say children, of any variety, are "running up a huge bill for the taxpayer" is downright cold.

The problem is that these Illegal Aleins come here have children without means of supporting them no stability or health Care so they bring these Children into this world immediatly putting their future and health at risk, They have these children in hopes of getting around immigration laws, knowing with the way current social iade and Medical, welfare system works they have no repsonsibilty and are not held accountable to provide for their children with out relying on the Govt.s help. That IS CRUEL!

These parents ARE CRUEL and should have their chuildren taken from them, put into foster care and adopted to parents who really care for the childrens interest not thier own. They USE These anchor babies as leverage for their own cause of ILLEGALLY immigrating to the USA.

Their children are pawns and tools used to manipulate the immigration system. That is CRUEL:

[rebeccajo 14]

To say children, of any variety, are "running up a huge bill for the taxpayer" is downright cold.

So, I suppose that our not funding birth clinics, pre- and post-natal care all around the globe makes us a very cold nation? Newsflash: Most countries do not award citizenship to children born on their soil unless those children are those of lawful residents or citizens of said country. That doesn't make those nations "cold" nations. It's fairly common sense.

No Reinhard, I'm not talking about what happens anywhere else but on our own soil. And I'm not talking about residency either. I'm talking about looking into the face of any child and considering a problem they have as a 'drain' on taxpayers.

Period. End. Nothing Else.

I talked specifically about the drain on taxpayers that is caused by the provision of birthright citizenship. I did not advocate not caring for a child - any child - in need. We could and very likely would do that without that child being a citizen by birth.

Well, if we would do that, then don't bring up the issue of whether or not the child's care is a further drain on the system!

This child has nothing to do with the parents immigration status. It should receive medical attention and the parents problem should be a different matter. If their deportation should be delayed it's no skin off anyones nose.

Edited July 12, 2007 by rebeccajo

[Addie_Goodvibes 0]

well, we spend $12 billion a month in iraq..i don't feel any safer ..

That is a waste of tax payers resources we should spend that money on Securing our border.

that money should be spent supporting immigration law enforcement.

[John & Annie 1]

Birthright is definatly an Issue but the laws need to be re-written. To not include babies of Illegal Immigrants.

Actually it does already state that.

But there was a precedent set back in the day and now the law is interpreted differently.

It comes down to challenging the Supreme Court, so that the ruling may be re clarified and stated in a better way.

[rebeccajo 14]

well, we spend $12 billion a month in iraq..i don't feel any safer ..

That is a waste of tax payers resources we should spend that money on Securing our border.

that money should be spent supporting immigration law enforcement.

You would advocate spending the amount of money we are spending on Iraq to enforce immigration law?

Boy, the bureaucrats in Washington would love you.

[Dr_LHA 3]

Yep.

They recently passed a law like that in Australia. One of the parents has to be Australian otherwise the child is not granted citizenship.

Otherwise people could simply fly here during a pregnancy and have the child here. Bam the child is American. Therefore the parents would be egible to apply for GC soon after..

As I pointed out above, such a law would be unconstitutional in this country. It would require a much more significant legal effort to pass such a law in the country.

The Constitution is a wonderful thing.

[Addie_Goodvibes 0]

well, we spend $12 billion a month in iraq..i don't feel any safer ..

That is a waste of tax payers resources we should spend that money on Securing our border.

that money should be spent supporting immigration law enforcement.

You would advocate spending the amount of money we are spending on Iraq to enforce immigration law?

Boy, the bureaucrats in Washington would love you.

Well it would be better spent securing our border and NO I do Not advocate spending 12billion / month on the border, I also Do Not advocate spending 10 Billion + annually on Illegal Aliens and their anchor baby pawn children.

I think the money spent in Iraq a portion of it should be spent on the border, then on improving Education & Healthcare systems. The same Educatin systems or Health Care facilities should Be Allowed to inquire about immigration status and therefore be able to screen out those who are not legal citizens from tkaing advantage of tax payer, legal resident/ citizenship funded institutions. The money should be spent hiring more officers to patrol the streets training them in Immigration law and allow them to enforce our federal laws for the security of our nation.

I am sure you do not mind supporting these Illegal Criminals, and therefore you do not support the security or prosperity of our nation.

[rebeccajo 14]

Yep.

They recently passed a law like that in Australia. One of the parents has to be Australian otherwise the child is not granted citizenship.

Otherwise people could simply fly here during a pregnancy and have the child here. Bam the child is American. Therefore the parents would be egible to apply for GC soon after..

As I pointed out above, such a law would be unconstitutional in this country. It would require a much more significant legal effort to pass such a law in the country.

The Constitution is a wonderful thing.

Ain't it though!

[almaty 19]

Yep.

They recently passed a law like that in Australia. One of the parents has to be Australian otherwise the child is not granted citizenship.

Otherwise people could simply fly here during a pregnancy and have the child here. Bam the child is American. Therefore the parents would be egible to apply for GC soon after..

As I pointed out above, such a law would be unconstitutional in this country. It would require a much more significant legal effort to pass such a law in the country.

The Constitution is a wonderful thing.

i agree. the constitution is your friend...

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To say children, of any variety, are "running up a huge bill for the taxpayer" is downright cold.

So, I suppose that our not funding birth clinics, pre- and post-natal care all around the globe makes us a very cold nation? Newsflash: Most countries do not award citizenship to children born on their soil unless those children are those of lawful residents or citizens of said country. That doesn't make those nations "cold" nations. It's fairly common sense.

No Reinhard, I'm not talking about what happens anywhere else but on our own soil. And I'm not talking about residency either. I'm talking about looking into the face of any child and considering a problem they have as a 'drain' on taxpayers.

Period. End. Nothing Else.

I talked specifically about the drain on taxpayers that is caused by the provision of birthright citizenship. I did not advocate not caring for a child - any child - in need. We could and very likely would do that without that child being a citizen by birth.

Well, if we would do that, then don't bring up the issue of whether or not the child's care is a further drain on the system!

This child has nothing to do with the parents immigration status. It should receive medical attention and the parents problem should be a different matter. If their deportation should be delayed it's no skin off anyones nose.

There are two issues here that I'd like not to get confused: One is the care that we provide to achild in need. The other is the huge number of births that we as taxpayers fund for no other reason than people looking to give birth here so their kids can be US citizens - and the benefits they subsequently get to collect on behalf of those childen. I think it's time to consider putting an end to the latter.

[peejay 327]

This issue of "anchor babies" is very often used as propoganda by the pro-amnesty supporters of open borders and by illegal alien cheerleaders to gain sympathy from the gullible and misinformed. How many times has everyone heard the lame proclamations by them that hundreds (if not thousands) of American citizens are deported by the big bad mean cruel US government when immigration laws are actually enforced? It's funny how they drop that "bomb", but never give the complete details (or the truth).

What a sack of baloney! And a deceptive sack of baloney at that!

Babies are born all over the world and children live all over the world. To suggest that children are sentenced to a horrible atrocity by returning to their parents' country of origin is absurd. Especially when no one forces the kids to go anywhere with their parents.

It is the choice of the parent whether the kids stay or go...just as it was the choice of the parent to bring them into this world. The fact is that only the deported parent must go.

To blame America and the American people for a situation that the illegal aliens brought onto themselves and their children is equally absurd. What you sow is what you reap.

[Marc and Olga 0]

Actually what is apparently covered under the 14th amendment of the United States of America is this:

The following persons born in the United States are explicitly citizens:

* Children born to US citizens;

* Children born to aliens who are lawfully inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people and obeying its laws.

I will add the paragraph following that list on the wiki entry:

The Supreme Court's ruling in Plyler v. Doe[3] stated that illegal immigrants are "within the jurisdiction" of the states in which they reside, and added in a footnote that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful." Some legislators, reacting to illegal immigration, have proposed that this be changed, either through legislation or a constitutional amendment. If the Supreme Court adheres to current interpretations of the Fourteenth Amendment, then it may be that only an amendment would be effective to bar the children of illegal immigrants from citizenship, although Plyler did not explicitly address the question of children born in the United States to illegal aliens or other non-citizens; the children dealt with in Plyler were born outside the U.S.

source