Obviously you miss the point. Anchor babies are technically natural born citizens well withing their right to stay. But very often I read arguements for their deportation around here.
In this case you have a young girl whom is not a natural born citizen and is here on a CONDITINAL BASIS and whom is WILLFULLY violating the requirements and conditions of here stay.
Does the arguement make sense to you now???
No, the argument doesn’t make any sense. She isn’t violating any regulation she is appealing a ruling. It’s right there in the article. She has a right to due process doesn’t she?
“Obviously you miss the point. Anchor babies are technically natural born citizens well withing their right to stay. But very often I read arguements for their deportation around here.’
Technically, they aren’t citizens - natural born or otherwise.
“In this case you have a young girl whom is not a natural born citizen and is here on a CONDITINAL BASIS and whom is WILLFULLY violating the requirements and conditions of here stay.”
I find it interesting that you don’t see the very selective and politically-correct basis used in the enforcement of immigration law. Muslim foreign “student” violating the terms of your stay? Nothing is done - STILL. Repeat criminal offender from a supposed “victim” nation? Nothing is done. Criminal immigration law-breaker, tax cheat, and identity thief? You can stay!
Legal resident from England appealing a regulation derived from the 1996 law? DEPORT! Don’t YOU see the rampant hypocrisy and criminal favoritism in such enforcement decisions?