Posted on 04/28/2010 9:25:10 AM PDT by pissant
Updated 9:04 AM PDT, Wed, Apr 28, 2010
Print Email Share Buzz up! TWITTER FACEBOOK
NBCWashington
Representative Duncan Hunter wants to deport the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
Hunter, who spoke at a tea party gathering in Ramona Saturday, said he does not believe children born to illegal immigrant parents should get automatic U.S. citizenship.
In a video posted Saturday on YouTube, Hunter appears to be taking questions from the crowd when he is asked if he would support the deportation of children born to illegal immigrants.
“I would have to,” he said.
“It’s a complex issue and it’s… you can look and say, ‘You’re a mean guy, that’s a mean thing to do, that’s not a humanitarian thing to do.’ We simply cannot afford what we’re doing right now,” he said. "California’s going under.”
“We’re not being mean,” he told the crowd. “We’re just saying it takes more than just walking across the border to become an American citizen.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcsandiego.com ...
You seem pretty content with illegals having anchor babies. Or, am I wrong?
Yep, this has been established for a long time.
Wouldn’t Wong Kim Ark (1898) which is last in time of these 3 and where the belief that anchor babies are citizens comes from be the good precedent were this to make it to the SC?
Wow. What a petty little reply.
I'm just citing the law, Ray ... because we live in a country governed by the Rule of Law. Mr. Hunter either does not know about the law in this case, or he chooses to ignore it.
You now know the law. Are you going to ignore it?
Not petty. Just curious.
I'm just citing the law, Ray ... because we live in a country governed by the Rule of Law. Mr. Hunter either does not know about the law in this case, or he chooses to ignore it.
I am going to wait and see what editor-surveyor's response it. If Ark is the case that seems to support the false impression of anchor babies as citizens then I can only conclude the Justices were asses.
You now know the law. Are you going to ignore it?
Not necessarily. I would like to see it overturned. How about you?
Chief among them being that it ruins your argument. It is, however, currently the controlling precedent.
Sorry, that's just the facts.
Good for you. He doesn't have the same legal authority as the Supreme Court, however, and they ruled on the matter in 1898.
Read the arguments in the case.
Its a mess, and the situation is different anyway.
I researched this a few years ago I think if you do a search on it you will find President Clinton signed a law in 95 or 96 that did away with precedent the children are returned with the parents so no one can claim precedent as he did this in 95 or 96 google it.
That decision has already been ignored in appelate courts.
You like defective decisions, and especially if they do not address the actual situation at hand.
.
Ah, I see. So appelate courts now have the power to over-rule the USSC.
You like defective decisions, and especially if they do not address the actual situation at hand.
Nope -- that decision certainly doesn't address the citizenship of a child born in the US to parents who are subject to a foreign government but living in the US....
Do you simply inhabit a different world than the rest of us -- one where facts and logic don't work the same way?
I notice that you didn’t respond to the question of overturning the decision. Would you like to see it overturned? I sure as hell would.
The decision is overall a good one, well-reasoned on the interpretation of the wording of the 14th Amendment. It could use some clarification on matters such as when the parents are not here legally, but it does not need to be overturned.
I suspect that your real problem isn't with the citizenship of the baby, but rather with the immigration preferences given to the non-citizen parents. That's a matter for Congress, not the courts.
There hasn’t been a case firmly on point ever. The decision granted citizenship to those born in the US to non-citizen parents here legally. The assumption that children born to illegal aliens are citizens comes from the case. No one has brought a case yet to answer that question since.
“the rest of us”
You have some cockroaches in your pocket?
.
“The decision granted citizenship to those born in the US to non-citizen parents here legally.”
.
That is why it doesn’r address “anchor babies,” but it also ignored the 14th ammendment deliberately.
.
r9etb cites his opinion, and calls it “the law.”
His favorite decision doesn’t even address “anchor babies” because the parents were not illegals to begin with.
He thinks everyone here is so stupid that they cannot see the difference. - He’d make a good ‘Rat senator.
.
So, I am waiting for your take on what race are Mexicans...
Really.
Yet you use a Court decision to justify it.
I am also appalled that some of my fellow citizens find it plausible that a baby born of invaders should have citizenship conferred on it thereby giving the parent a solid foothold in this country.
I think it is reprehensible that some of my fellow citizens would cheapen their own citizenship by, not only condoning this practice, but encouraging it by justifying it.
Thanks for clarifying. I read the decision but did not catch the status of the parents in it. I take it they were legal immigrants then?
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.