Deport Children of Illegals: Hunter

NBCSanDiego ^ | April 28, 2010 | R. Stickney

[Steelfish]

Deport Children of Illegals: Hunter By R. STICKNEY Apr 28, 2010

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.”

[Tublecane]

“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.”

The 14th amendment disagrees with him.

[chaos_5]

Duncan Hunter wants to deport the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants

If I could support him more than 100% I would!

[buschbaby]

I agree with him. Why should we have to support these kids? They can remain US Citizens and return after age 18. What kind of parent would leave their kid in another country anyway?

[Little Ray]

Beg to differ.

In the simplistic form, if that were so, the children born to diplomats in the US would be citizens - and they are not.

There are better, more detailed arguments, but the interpretation of the 14th Amendment is about as twisted as the interpretation of 2nd Amendment in the the Miller case.

[mnehring]

This is a challenge for those already recognized as citizens by the government. You can't just strip citizenship, even if the law changes or there is a clarification of the meaning of the 14th Amendment, those already recognized a citizens would be grandfathered in. You can't make a change in the law retroactive (ex post facto law). (Article 1, Section 9 ss 3)

[Tublecane]

“In the simplistic form, if that were so, the children born to diplomats in the US would be citizens - and they are not.”

They are not because of the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which does not apply to the children of illegals.

[rob777]

"The 14th amendment disagrees with him."


You are right, it would require a constitutional amendment to address the issue of "anchor babies".

[Shadowjudge]

Yup, however, the policy should be that if your parents are here illegally, you go with them. Only humane thing to do, because we cannot allow this Anchor baby stuff to slide.

[Tublecane]

“You can’t just strip citizenship, even if the law changes or there is a clarification of the meaning of the 14th Amendment, those already recognized a citizens would be grandfathered in. You can’t make a change in the law retroactive (ex post facto law). (Article 1, Section 9 ss 3)”

It wouldn’t be “ex post facto” if a court were to rule that the law had been interpreted incorrectly at the time the children were determined to have been citizens. We would most likely still “grandfather” them in, but that would be for convenience’s sake, not by necessity.

[HuntsvilleTxVeteran]

Fourteenth Amendment
Section 1.
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.
****
Are Illegal Aliens under the jurisdiction of the USA and or State?

[RnMomof7]

The current law makes them citizens, but it should not mean their parents have squatters rights or get to move to the front of the line .

The parents should have to return to their home country and apply for US visas .. if they want to leave their children with LEGAL family here the kids can stay but mom ( and dad if illegal ) need to go

[Tublecane]

“Yup, however, the policy should be that if your parents are here illegally, you go with them. Only humane thing to do, because we cannot allow this Anchor baby stuff to slide.”

Not necessarily. If the illegal parents had legal resident relatives or found some guardians or gave the kid up for adoption, or something, that would be their decision.

[95B30]

I think you should do some research on that. The discussions and the idea of what was meant by a citizen at the time might open your eyes. Pay particular attention to what was said and why, about the Indian tribes.

[henkster]

Then it is time for an Amendment to the 14th Amendment. I agree that we can’t strip citizenship from those already here, but we need to put a stop to the illegal entry. Back when the 14th Amendment was ratified, we were welcoming huge influxes of immigrants. Legal meant you passed inspection at Ellis Island. There was very little “illegal” immigration; they were just put back on the boat for the return voyage.

I don’t think the Congress or State Legislatures of 1870 ever thought we would have the situation we do today.

[Little Ray]

I think it can be argued that illegals are “not subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” too. (Some of ‘em sure act like it...). Maybe I should be thinking “tourists” instead of “diplomatic personnel.”

As I said, there better and more detailed arguments against this.

[Tublecane]

“Are Illegal Aliens under the jurisdiction of the USA and or State?”

Both.

[Pelham]

Someone should have challenged the birthright citizen application to illegal aliens years ago.

But the Treason Lobby in both parties doesn’t want that to happen.

[Steelfish]

This is quite an informative piece- worth a read.

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2010/01/02/a-proper-understanding-of-the-fourteenth-amendment/

[NativeTxn]

My husband and I were just talking about this at lunch today. Here in Texas the illegals walk across the border and have their babies anywhere so they will be citizens. The hospitals are loaded with them but they will come and have them in parks or cars etc so the parents have a foot in. I am a nice person but would love to see this overturned!