Posted on 04/28/2010 9:25:10 AM PDT by pissant
But they have set precedent. Because just about every politician believes it.
This is one time that I agree fully with Duncan Hunter.
Change the rules on anchor babies
“And said children can come back when they turn 18 and run for president when they reach 35. And a constitutional amendment is required to change that.”
That is totally false!
They are not citizens if the parents were not here legally.
That is what the court said, and it is what the constitution says.
.
“Change the rules on anchor babies”
.
There are no “anchor babies.”
.
Hunter is a nitwit. The 1996 immigration law ALREADY DOES THIS.
Hunter is just pimping for another dead end run into a brick wall.
custody follows the parents. When the illegal alien parents are deported, the minor us citizen goes with the parents. Custody follows the PARENTS, custody does NOT follow the child.
If Hunter had done any research he would have known this.
Sending the anchors along with the illegal parents is what would normally be expected but that is the reason they refer to them as anchors. The Nazi democrat party has long made allowances for illegals to stay here with their “legal” children. That is B.S. and sending them back with the families just keeps the family together, in Mexico or whatever other craphole they crawled out of.
Pull your head out of your ass, cupcake.
That's what's at the heart of the issue. Children born on US soil to illegal aliens should not be automatically granted US citizenship.
They should be sent back to their home country with their parents, until such time that they work their way through our legal immigration system - if they even desire to do so. They may not.
Yes, that’s true. Ask anyone who has been in that situation, and they’ll tell you it ain’t a free pass.
So, you're telling me that illegal alien women don't hop the border so they can give birth to their kids on US soil, for the express purpose of obtaining US citizenship for them?
You're saying that there's no such thing as an "anchor baby"?
Excellent Idea, Mr. Hunter.
Get rid of the children and the parents will go with them.
Unfortunately, that is part of the Constitution.
I have no problem with that at all. I just dont think we should cater to the parents who are here illegally.
Can you quote the constitution for us on that?
And yet: they kiddo’s ARE citizens, like it or not.
I would suggest taking their names and pertinents. If, when they are 18 and wish to return, we sorta have to let them. But at least we will know them...might even take a dna swab to hold until their return or something.
No, they aren’t. That is fallacy, but they are treated as such in current circumstances.
Nor according to editor-surveyor, it isn't.
He's posting legal commentaries about this to this thread which may shed better light on the "anchor baby" concept.
I'm going to sit back and read a while to get some better understanding of the legal side of this before I comment further.
I agree.
How are they not?
Where is the fallacy?
I’d love for that to be the case....
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.