You owe, big time.

[ilbegone]

You can interpret me and carry on however you like. The text is clear and I'm not going to argue it any further.

[ilbegone]

I see what you're getting at now.

This is my mode of thinking.


The ones who grow up here don't belong to another country, regardless of what both sides say. However, I don't believe they should be citizens either.

Their children will be citizens. I'm not holding my breath, but hopefully in the years between the grandparents being here illegally and their citizen grandchildren coming of age a handle is gotten on racist brown separatists, clueless or separatist "educators", and media which classifies and pushes us apart according to our skin colors and extremist presumption of ethnicity, and maybe we will have a chance of becoming us.

Do I think any of this is going to be easy? No. Not at all.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

OK. Now I understand.

I was wondering which way you were going to go because, based upon your suggestion (legalizing the illegals brought here as minors, but not granting citizenship), you are going to succeed in doing one of two things. It's unavoidable. You chose "B."

A. Create a permanent underclass in American society. People who, for generations, occupy a sub-citizen caste.

B. Delay rewarding illegal alien families for successfully violating our laws, for one generation.

[Twoller]

Nobody who has a non-citizen ancestor should be considered a US citizen. Nobody should be grandfathered. How long has this been going on? Isn't it obvious that the whole strategy is to create a situation "on the ground", to create a situation that appears to be unavoidable and uncontestable? A fait accompli?

Those who find they are not really US citizens can apply for citizenship. Anchor babies did not choose to be anchor babies. They are more eligible for citizenship then their parents, which is still to say, not very eligible at this point, but still more eligible than their parents.

[Kathy63]

The children of illegal aliens who were born here are entitled to have, and most of them DO have, dual citizenship. The children of mexicans who are here legally, perhaps even citizens also hold dual citizenship.

There is nothing wrong with sending people to a country where they are citizens whether or not they have ever been there.

We did not always allow dual citizenship. At one time claiming the citizenship of another country constituted a voluntary relinquishment of American citizenship. That would end the controversy.

[Commander Bunny]

Originally Posted by Kathy63

The children of illegal aliens who were born here are entitled to have, and most of them DO have, dual citizenship. The children of mexicans who are here legally, perhaps even citizens also hold dual citizenship.

There is nothing wrong with sending people to a country where they are citizens whether or not they have ever been there.

We did not always allow dual citizenship. At one time claiming the citizenship of another country constituted a voluntary relinquishment of American citizenship. That would end the controversy.

I spent about 7 years in Germany after I married my Wife, and decided to move to Her country and go through a pastry chefs aprenticeship, then worked for a few years there.
When I decided to return to the US I was turned -around in Baltimore and sent back to Stutgart because all I had was a German passport, and blew past the INS checpoint when I arrived, not thinking about it.

It took about 3-4 months of going to the US Cosulate to get things straightened out, and Me back to Ca.

[ilbegone]

B. Delay rewarding illegal alien families for successfully violating our laws, for one generation.

I don't think it's really rewarding illegal families. Those who are ultimately responsible for personal illegality will be deported, those who came here with something other than the motivations of a child.

Chain migration is ended, the parents, cousins and everyone else returns to and/or stays in their home country.

No one who ever entered the United states with adult reasoning will be eligible for citizenship, nor anyone who entered as a child after a certain cut off date (in cunjunction with correct interpretation of 14th amendment, see below) be eligible for permanent residency.

Furthermore, those who are not citizens yet are genuine criminals, those who have willfully failed to become minimally educated, and those who take undue advantage of our social services - gone faster than you can blink your eyes - regardless of their circumstances.

No more dual citizenship, no more divided loyalties, make a choice. If one chooses to be a citizen of another country, then the benefits of American citizenship doesn't apply to that person. And get the hell out, head first and airborne if necessary.

And the politicians and employers who let this mess fester for their own gain over the last twenty four years are drawn and quartered. Those are the ones who REALLY need to suffer for their sins, and I believe all too often we forget that fact.

Anchor babies did not choose to be anchor babies. They are more eligible for citizenship then their parents

I believe you are missing the point.

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.

[Twoller]

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?

[ilbegone]

It's not a "dodge" concerning cultural differences, it's the truth.

I know people who have thick accents, and understand but don't speak Spanish. They are people in between, despised both by people like you and their parent's countrymen as well. Exploitation style American employers don't generally want to hire them as well, too much American taint. The American born being seen as Mexican only works to the differing goals of the Mexican government and American brown separatists and their deluded lackeys. Otherwise, it's generally not worth a crap to anyone else. They, like their parents, are pawns worked to various political goals.

And blanket revocation of citizenship is a dangerous thing, where does it end? Get it started under any but the most narrow of circumstances, and it just might morph into something which reaches and touches you as well.

Much better to have the 14th amendment clarified as to its original intent and go by a certain cut off date of born before or after, as outlined in my above post.

Other than that, I'm not going to get into an endless cycle of arguing with you over what tint of blue the sky is or what time of day it is somewhere - anywhere here or else in the world: Greenwich meantime, international atomic time, Texas time, military time, Indian time, quarterly versus seasonal time, fiscal period, what semester we're in, lunar cycle, Gregorian calendar, Julian calender, BC-AD, BCE-CE, Mayan calendar, time for lunch, time for supper, time to hit the ol' fart sack, Howdy Doody time, effective time, work time, break time, time line, martini time, beer thirty, time for a cold'un, relaxation time, space time continuem, International date line, competitive time, 8 second rider, three minute wonder, gestation time or any other kind of time.

[Twoller]

You have completely failed to grasp the problem and the situation.

Mexico and Mexicans have systematically established a population of people in the US who cannot be citizens. They are not the only ones doing this, language is not always an issue.

It does not matter what kind of hardships threaten those people falsely claiming US citizenship because they had a non-citizen ancestor somewhere back. It does not matter. That is part of the excuse and leverage being applied against US citizenship. The hardships that loom for those people is not the problem of US citizens. We are being deliberately attacked by having our country flooded by non-citizens. The interests of US citizens come first. Next comes the interests of naturalized citizens, all those people who have come in legally, applied for US citizenship and legitimately achieved it. As long as they are good citizens, then their citizenship should not be questioned.

But all the rest and their descendents represent an act of aggression and subversion and need to be confronted as such.

Isn't it obvious what you are proposing in some kind of cut off date? It is amnesty and can only exist as a leverage point and more opportunity for illegal immigrants and their anchor babies.