Okay folks - explain this to me ....

[Sorry - I tried to find the thread where we discussed this topic some time ago and I can't. (so any help will be appreciated)]

Some time ago we were discussing the fact that it seemed that a lot of illegals were crossing the border just in time to have a baby. That baby then became an anchor baby letting the illegal mother stay in this country and get all sorts of welfare as needed to take care of the child. Some of us were suggesting that the child could stay - in foster care - and the parent should return to her country and try to get back legally. And I recall that there were a lot of folks that thought those of us who thought that way were heartless.

Well I was watching "60 Minutes" (November 23 2008) and I saw a story about several widows - some with children - who were going to be deported because they didn't get to have their interview while the husband was alive to make sure the marriage was a legal one. Oh, the kids were not being deported - just the widows.

So tell me - what is the difference? Why should the widows who did everything according to the laws of the land be forced to leave their families behind and a woman who broke every law to drop an anchor baby be accorded all the amenities of the country?

(a lawyer is handling their cases pro bono and filed a class action law suit)

Because they talked to the government. :berg:

Man did that story piss me off.

Makes you realize just how stupid and fucked up the US gubmint is, doesn't it?

I swear to God: we need a 3rd American Revolution.

Birthright citizenship.

Enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

If a person is born on U.S. soil (the 50 states, any U.S. territories, including on U.S. ships, or on U.S. bases or diplomatic missions) OR at least one parent is an American citizens automatically becomes a U.S. citizen.

Such a policy inevitably leads to things that seem unfair.

Are those widows being forced to leave their children behind, or did they have a choice to keep their family together in Mexico?

We had a case recently, IIRC, of a woman who'd been born in the US to an American father and English mother. They moved here when she was a few months old, she grew up here and has spent all her working life here, paying tax the entire time. When her dad died, she looked after her mum. When her mum died, the authorities tried to deport her because she was still technically American.
Luckily for her, her MP, a local TV channel and a couple of newspapers got involved, which eventually shamed the authorities into backing down.

The Constitution needs to be amended to exclude the children of those who enter the country illegally. It was a problem that the Founders and Framers didn't foresee.

Remind me again, what's forcing them to leave their families behind? Mexico does not deny citizenship to children of Mexican citizens.

You can call birthright citizenship a problem if you want. I call it one of the many beautiful things about this country.

Interview to establish that their marriages were real!?!? Not to sound crass, but if you are married to someone, you ARE their piece of legal. You in effect can not say NO. You can be charged with adultery. You can be taken to the proverbial cleaners. Even if one or both are the biggest libertines the world has ever seen, in a pinch, they remember, they have a piece of legal, somewhere. You can't get any more married than that.

NO - the women are told they will be deported. The children can stay but THEY MUST GO.

The women that are being forced to separate from the children are the women who are trying to have their children raised in the land of their fathers.
The illegal mothers aren't being forced to leave their children behind - they are being allowed to raise their children WHO HAVE NO US CITIZEN PARENT BUT WERE JUST BORN HERE in this country.

Pity you didn't get to see the segment on "60 Minutes"

Ramen - the widows come from somewhere other than Mexico. One came from Germany, another from Brazil IIRC. Both were legally married in the US but the INH has this thing that the couple must prove the marriage is based on love and not on the woman just trying to ger her green card and permanent visa. And because this interview didn't take place before the husband died, the women are being told they will be denied citizenship and deported back to their home country. One woman interviewed had a child (not an infant - A CHILD) and when she complained that her child would be forced to leave his homeland she was told by INH that the child could stay here; only she would be forced to leave.

I would imagine they didn't foresee it because they didn't foresee an immigration policy so complex that it is virtually impassable.

I'm more than happy with strict enforcement when combined with immigration policy that doesn't actively discourage legal immigration due to its complexity.

I call it a travesty.

If you're here legally, by all means, you are entitled to American citizenship. If your entrance into the country was a criminal act, you ain't entitled to jack shit.

Think of the country as your home. Do you allow just anybody to enter your home, or are you choosey about the character of your guests?

If someone breaks into your home, is it OK because the whole point was to allow them into your home? And are they somehow "entitled" to join your family, or to help themselves to your possessions and the benefits of your labor?

If you answer "yes" to any of those questions. you're a chickenshit cocksucker.

So the answer is no.

Sounds like a good opportunity to become bilingual.

They didn't foresee it because they never foresaw having the types of restrictions on immigration that you have.

Given your completely arbitrary stance on the whole thing it's probably best you don't try to bring too much attention to yourself in these types of threads.

Well, that's a cute analogy. Doesn't actually apply to the situation, though, because last I checked, my home doesn't grant citizenship. It is not a nation. The responsibilities of the social construct differ greatly.

Most importantly, I am the head of my home. I am not the head of America. I represent one of almost 306 million people, all with differing opinions, skills, and beliefs. The process to join that family, legally, is easy if you're born here, but fucking hard otherwise. That'd be fine if it indicated the quality of the person, but no matter how good or bad a person is, the immigration system is just as difficult to navigate through.

I don't like illegal immigration. But what I also don't like is our country, whose greatest strength is its diversity of thought, whose very foundation was based on immigration to pursue a better life, essentially making it into a special club that only those who can afford to navigate the system get a shot at entry.

The best way to discourage illegal immigration is to improve the immigration system that is already in place. I'm all for improving enforcement, but until we actually deal with the root of the problem, it is only going to get worse.

However - my question is why is it okay for the INH to separate a woman who is here LEGALLY from her child who was born here but it is NOT okay to separate a woman who came here ILLEGALLY from her child who was born here?

I agree - the immigration system - like several others - needs an overhaul. But who should suffer more while we are overhauling it? Those who abide by the rules we have or those who blatenly(sp) break them?

It shouldn't be OK. I'd be fine with giving the same 'status' to these women in this situation.



Not so sure Muad Dib would be, though. At least, per his stance on the issue, he shouldn't be.

Who is saying it is ok?

It's a false premise. The mothers of anchor babies aren't allowed to stay either. There's been several cases in the news about that (remember the woman who sought sanctuary in a Catholic church in LA?).

It is a path to citizenship for the parents, but it's one that takes about 20 years. Only after the kid sponsors the parents as a citizen, and they can't do that as a minor.

It used to be different, but they changed it about 8 years ago IIRC.

And no, I don't think people should be rewarded for breaking the law, so I've got no problems deporting the parents.

Of course, I also think birth right citizenship is screwy, and I think it's a matter of interpretation, not ironclad.

For example, in Elk vs Wilkins, the supreme court ruled that a native american who renounced his tribe didn't automatically become a US citizen even though he was born in the borders of the US.

Over 33% of all immigration to the US is due to birthright citizenship to illegals. That's just ridiculous.

Close the country for everyone and authorize shoot-to-kill tactics at the border.

How big of a problem is illegal immigration in Australia? You're quick to jump on me when these threads come up, but I don't see this being a problem where you live. It doesn't affect you.

They didn't foresee it because they didn't foresee any legal restrictions on immigration.

On the contrary: it's a very appropriate analogy. Your home is your castle. You have dominion over your home. You set the rules there. You have the right to say who can be there and who cannot. If someone is conducting themselves against your wishes, you have every right to give them the boot. If someone enters your home against your wishes, you have every right to defend it.

I'll agree 100% that the immigration process needs to be fixed, but until it is, it doesn't give anyone the right to enter illegally.

I'm missing something here. Is there a legal marriage certificate on file somewhere in the USA? IS there an IRS record? If so it should be easy to establish the legality of the marriage. If they were not married here and there is no record I quite understand why they are suspicious.