Quote:
Originally Posted by ilbegone
....
Generally speaking, the main difference between someone who was born here to illegal parents and someone who was brought here at a very young age by illegal parents is the current interpretation of the 14th amendment.
Furthermore, if the parents, aunts, uncles, and other persons who depend on a child's American citizenship as a springboard to America are now deportable, those children born here to illegal parents are no longer "anchor" babies.
While I firmly believe that the 14th amendment needs to be interpreted and applied in its background context (and applied in a firm "born before - born after" mode concerning children of illegals), I don't believe in revoking citizenship of anyone who has previously enjoyed birthright citizenship, which would probably include everyone at this board as well as anchor babies.
Revocation of citizenship is a can of worms, which if not very narrowly applied, could turn into a sort of French revolutionary style guillotine, a weapon applied to the "enemies" of the "cause" to begin with, then feasting on its creators. If one has studied history, one sees how that one could get out of control fast.
I would reserve revocation of citizenship for those who fraudulently obtained naturalization, including adult illegal presence prior to naturalization for others than those who grew up in the United States.
Getting back to the children of illegals. Generally speaking, if someone has grown up in the United States, they don't belong to another country. Particularly grass roots Latin America, which will reject them for their cultural American - ness, regardless of how we interpret them in the light of our own American experience.
|
Nobody who has a non-citizen as an ancestor has any business claiming to be a citizen of the United States. By that I mean if you have an ancestor who claimed birth right citizenship and who did not have
both parents who were citizens, then you are not a US citizen. Of course, if any of your ancestors applied for and successfully became citizens, then this would not apply to you. We are talking about birth right citizenship and the consequences of confronting the problem of the corruption of this institution. Nobody who is not the offspring of
both parents who are US citizens has any business claiming birthright citizenship and none of their offspring either.
The notion that children born of non-citizen parents just naturally are Americans is utterly derelict and really just ignores the issue of ESL classes and the endless language services that are supposed to be available for "citizens". But we see another new dodge here, the idea that these anchor babies are no longer accepted "culturally" by the countries their parents, or grandparents, or great-great grandparents snuck in from. Even despite the fact that English is
still a second language to them, if at all. Even if they make a big deal out of identifying with the country they came from before their host country.
But you know what? If the country they came from rejects them "culturally", so what? It's not our problem. And how many of these countries care about protecting the US from illegal immigration from those countries? Do we really care about whether Mexico does not see it's anchor babies as Mexican any more? And if that's true, then why all the fuss when Mexico sees its infestation here in the US confronted in any way?