• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Getting rid of "Anchor Babies" loophole

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I first call your attention to this article, wherein which lies the following:

A Phoenix news station (KPHO) is reporting that the state Senator behind Arizona’s new immigration law, Russell Pierce (R), does not intend on stopping at SB-1070. In e-mails obtained by the local CBS affiliate, Pearce said he intends to push for an “anchor baby” bill that would essentially overturn the 14th amendment by no longer granting citizenship to the children of undocumented immigrants born on U.S. soil.

The Constitution says the following:

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.

This bill is clearly unconstitutional, but you know, there is a point to this bill. It is a fact that illegal aliens are popping out babies in order circumvent the law. So, what would you do? A Constitutional amendment would take years, if ever, to pass. But did our leaders envision that that passage of the 14th Amendment would create such a loophole?

Liberal thought that the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and therefore subject to a loose interpretation, does fly in the fact of Conservative values, but an interpretation of the Constitution, saying Conservatives of creating a baby, after having broken the law, means the baby is also illegal, would mean Conservatives adopting a Liberal belief, in order to attempt ending the anchor babies loophole. And if Conservatives act on this line of thought, then can they still view themselves as strict constructionists? No, they can't, as they would then be laughed at as hypocrites, and an argument of strict construction on any other platform seen as meaningless.

Here is what I would do:

1) Work on the Constitutional amendment, which would, admittedly, be a daunting task.

2) Competely seal the border, putting so many troops there, that illegals cannot cross.

3) Illegals with kids already here get absolutely no welfare, health care, or education. Make it so difficult for them to live here that they are actually better off where they came from, which would force them to go back.

4) Jail employers who hire illegals. Again, make it so difficult for them to live here that they are actually better off where they came from, which would force them to go back.

I know that I am about to be called cold-hearted, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. The illegal alien invasion is stressing our resources to the point that Americans suffer for it, and America's duty should be to Americans first. After all, this is America, not the United Nations.

What I outline would not only work. It would not only be perfectly legal under the Constitution, but it would not undermine the philosophy of strict construction of the Constitution of the United States.

Discussion, anyone?
 
Last edited:

Geo Patric

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
3,671
Reaction score
1,057
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
here is what i would do - nothing that does not apply retroactively.

see how many folks vote for it.

geo.
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
I first call your attention to this article, wherein which lies the following:



The Constitution says the following:



This bill is clearly unconstitutional, but you know, there is a point to this bill. It is a fact that illegal aliens are popping out babies in order circumvent the law. So, what would you do? A Constitutional amendment would take years, if ever, to pass. But did our leaders envision that that passage of the 14th Amendment would create such a loophole?

Liberal thought that the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and therefore subject to a loose interpretation, does fly in the fact of Conservative values, but an interpretation of the Constitution, saying Conservatives of creating a baby, after having broken the law, means the baby is also illegal, would mean Conservatives adopting a Liberal belief, in order to attempt ending the anchor babies loophole. And if Conservatives act on this line of thought, then can they still view themselves as strict constructionists? No, they can't, as they would then be laughed at as hypocrites, and an argument of strict construction on any other platform seen as meaningless.

Here is what I would do:

1) Work on the Constitutional amendment, which would, admittedly, be a daunting task.

2) Competely seal the border, putting so many troops there, that illegals cannot cross.

3) Illegals with kids already here get absolutely no welfare, health care, or education. Make it so difficult for them to live here that they are actually better off where they came from, which would force them to go back.

4) Jail employers who hire illegals. Again, make it so difficult for them to live here that they are actually better off where they came from, which would force them to go back.

I know that I am about to be called cold-hearted, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. The illegal alien invasion is stressing our resources to the point that Americans suffer for it, and America's duty should be to Americans first. After all, this is America, not the United Nations.

What I outline would not only work. It would not only be perfectly legal under the Constitution, but it would not undermine the philosophy of strict construction of the Constitution of the United States.

Discussion, anyone?

Personally, I think fighting 4 wars at one time and no-bid contracts are more of a stress than illegal immigration is. Let's get rid of those and prosper and then that won't be an argument anymore.
 

TacticalEvilDan

Shankmasta Killa
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
10,443
Reaction score
4,479
Location
Western NY and Geneva, CH
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
1) Work on the Constitutional amendment, which would, admittedly, be a daunting task.

I don't think a modification of the 14th Amendment is necessary. I think we simply need to decide if we're going to keep the newborn citizen here if their parents get deported, or if we're going to keep the family together when mom and dad go back.

2) Competely seal the border, putting so many troops there, that illegals cannot cross.

Great idea, take people whose primary mission is to kill people and break things and put them in a law enforcement situation. That's against the law for a reason, you know?

3) Illegals with kids already here get absolutely no welfare, health care, or education.

I'm okay with requiring someone to produce proof of citizenship in order to be eligible for public education. I had to do exactly that when it came time to enroll in the local community college, since a third of the tuition was paid by the state and a third was paid by the county of my residency.

In the same vein, I'm okay with requiring proof of citizenship for welfare benefits. I do think you'd need to figure out how to facilitate someone who is homeless and therefore lacking handy paperwork, since I imagine that helping someone who has absolutely nothing is what we really want welfare to do, right?

I am definitely not okay with requiring proof of citizenship in order to receive health care. Paperwork should not stand between any human being and emergency care. Doctors swear and oath and serve a cause higher than that of any law.

4) Jail employers who hire illegals. Again, make it so difficult for them to live here that they are actually better off where they came from, which would force them to go back.

Aside from the fact that I think we're way to eager to put people in jail as a society, I could potentially get behind this so long as the state would be required to prove intent or knowledge. In other words, if the state could prove that an employer meant to hire an illegal immigrant or kept them on the payroll knowing they're here illegally, I could see punishing them for it.

I think a fine would be a much better way of punishing them, however. Hiring and firing decisions are, first and foremost, business decisions. If you make it too expensive for them to do something you don't want them to do, rare is the employer who will do it anyway.
 

LuckyDan

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,758
Reaction score
1,603
Location
Carrollton, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
I'm not sure how having an achor baby allows the illegal parent to circumvent the law. If the parent is illegal, he or she still faces arrest and deportation, theoretically if not practically. How does being the parent of a child who is a legal citizen change that?

Its not like the kid has to stay here if his parents get sent back. The kid goes with the parent.
 

Jerry

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2006
Messages
51,123
Reaction score
15,258
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm not sure how having an achor baby allows the illegal parent to circumvent the law. If the parent is illegal, he or she still faces arrest and deportation, theoretically if not practically. How does being the parent of a child who is a legal citizen change that?

Its not like the kid has to stay here if his parents get sent back. The kid goes with the parent.

As the logic goes: the child is a citizen, and as a citizen has the right to stay. Being a minor, the parents make the decision to stay for the child.

It's bass ackwards. If the parents are illegal then they MUST leave, and as the child is a minor they have to leave with the parents if there are no other legal guardians in the country.
 

LuckyDan

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,758
Reaction score
1,603
Location
Carrollton, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
As the logic goes: the child is a citizen, and as a citizen has the right to stay. Being a minor, the parents make the decision to stay for the child.

It's bass ackwards. If the parents are illegal then they MUST leave, and as the child is a minor they have to leave with the parents if there are no other legal guardians in the country.

Thanks. So if there are legal guardians, the kid can be left in their custody. If not he goes with the parents, and can return when he can live on his own.

I don't see the problem.
 
Last edited:

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,987
Reaction score
16,579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Section 1 of the 14th was created so that it turned freed slaves into US citizens. Not so someone can trespass and pop out a baby or some birth tourist can come here and pop out a baby.Why else create the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 if section 1 of the 14th applied to anyone born on US soil. Apparently it didn't apply to everyone born on US soil seeing how those two things were created to make native Americans US citizens and to make anyone born on US soil a citizen. So obviously it is not unconstitutional to get rid of the anchor baby loop hole.


By the way the term anchor baby refers to a child of an illegal alien who is used to facilitate the legal immigration of relatives other than spouse of minor children through family reunification under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. So if this provisions was repealed there would technically be no more anchor babies. So its not the fact the child was born here to an illegal that makes the child a anchor baby, its the fact that child's citizenship can be used to facilitate the legal immigration of his or her relatives.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,577
Reaction score
36,618
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
It's a 2000 mile border. Where exactly are we going to get the manpower to lock it down?
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
6,468
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
It's a 2000 mile border. Where exactly are we going to get the manpower to lock it down?

I say we just go ahead and incorporate Mexico into the United States and be done with it. It'd solve a lot of problems that way.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,577
Reaction score
36,618
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I say we just go ahead and incorporate Mexico into the United States and be done with it. It'd solve a lot of problems that way.

We tried that once. The result was Texas. Between them and Florida, the whole world thinks we're nuts.
 

LuckyDan

DP Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2010
Messages
2,758
Reaction score
1,603
Location
Carrollton, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Section 1 of the 14th was created so that it turned freed slaves into US citizens. Not so someone can trespass and pop out a baby or some birth tourist can come here and pop out a baby.Why else create the Indian citizenship act of 1924 and the nationality act of 1940 if section 1 of the 14th applied to anyone born on US soil. Apparently it didn't apply to everyone born on US soil seeing how those two things were created to make native Americans US citizens and to make anyone born on US soil a citizen. So obviously it is not unconstitutional to get rid of the anchor baby loop hole.


By the way the term anchor baby refers to a child of an illegal alien who is used to facilitate the legal immigration of relatives other than spouse of minor children through family reunification under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. So if this provisions was repealed there would technically be no more anchor babies. So its not the fact the child was born here to an illegal that makes the child a anchor baby, its the fact that child's citizenship can be used to facilitate the legal immigration of his or her relatives.

Ah. Well now that is an issue, and one of many it will likely be difficult to un-do.
 

Simba

Active member
Joined
Jan 24, 2010
Messages
280
Reaction score
52
Location
Along the coast of South Carolina.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If you don't want them here, stopping hiring them to cut your lawns, sweep your walks, and wiping your little brats ass while you are at the gym or sun salon tanning yourself. Meanwhile, when I show back up in Afghanistan with my construction company next week, and look young Marines in the face who are anchor babies, I ain't going to be too sympathetic to your flag waving and favoring peeps and nations who couldn't give a rats ass about our country.

That boy is serving.
 

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,987
Reaction score
16,579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
If you don't want them here, stopping hiring them to cut your lawns, sweep your walks, and wiping your little brats ass while you are at the gym or sun salon tanning yourself.

Those who are against illegal immigration do not hire illegals.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,893
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
here is what i would do - nothing that does not apply retroactively.

see how many folks vote for it.

geo.

Why not? We do plenty of things that don't apply retroactively, especially where retroactive application would cause serious logistical problems.

Personally, I think fighting 4 wars at one time and no-bid contracts are more of a stress than illegal immigration is. Let's get rid of those and prosper and then that won't be an argument anymore.

Illegal immigration was a problem in 2000 just like it is today.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,577
Reaction score
36,618
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
34,987
Reaction score
16,579
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Hahahahahahahahah ohhhh you're so precious.

Why is that laughable? Contrary to the racist beliefs of the pro-illegals not every nanny, babysitter, lawn care specialist, farmer, construction worker and various other jobs are only filled with illegals from Mexico. Most employers are not dishonest, most of the US is not screwed up like California or some other state that basically welcomes illegals with open arms.
 
Last edited:

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
9,944
Reaction score
5,116
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Great idea, take people whose primary mission is to kill people and break things and put them in a law enforcement situation. That's against the law for a reason, you know?

The federal government is responsible for the defense of this nation. Common sense would dictate that that begins with our national border.
 

The Uncola

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2010
Messages
718
Reaction score
255
Location
Minnesota
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Hosrepucky.

People BORN in the USA are citizens, period. They are as much citizens as every one of you biggoted whitebread teabaggers.

Deal with it.
 

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
9,944
Reaction score
5,116
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Hosrepucky.

People BORN in the USA are citizens, period. They are as much citizens as every one of you biggoted whitebread teabaggers.

Deal with it.

Exactly who are you calling names? Please be specific, because I've seen no bigotry in this thread. As to your vulgar characterization of people with whom you disagree politically, well, that says a whole lot more about you and your inability to uphold your side in a debate than it does about anyone here.

Got anything substantive to add to the discussion, or are you just going to continue to call people names?
 

Moon

Why so serious?
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
9,944
Reaction score
5,116
Location
Washington State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I say we just go ahead and incorporate Mexico into the United States and be done with it. It'd solve a lot of problems that way.

It would create a whole lot more than it would solve. Mexico is a sovereign nation and honestly, I think they love the situation as it is right now. They don't have to worry about 10-15 million poor and unemployed people, and they get the free revenue when the illegals send money back home. It's not in Mexico's best interest for the US to fix the problem with illegals.
 

liblady

pirate lover
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 7, 2009
Messages
16,164
Reaction score
5,060
Location
St Thomas, VI
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
I first call your attention to this article, wherein which lies the following:



The Constitution says the following:



This bill is clearly unconstitutional, but you know, there is a point to this bill. It is a fact that illegal aliens are popping out babies in order circumvent the law. So, what would you do? A Constitutional amendment would take years, if ever, to pass. But did our leaders envision that that passage of the 14th Amendment would create such a loophole?

Liberal thought that the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and therefore subject to a loose interpretation, does fly in the fact of Conservative values, but an interpretation of the Constitution, saying Conservatives of creating a baby, after having broken the law, means the baby is also illegal, would mean Conservatives adopting a Liberal belief, in order to attempt ending the anchor babies loophole. And if Conservatives act on this line of thought, then can they still view themselves as strict constructionists? No, they can't, as they would then be laughed at as hypocrites, and an argument of strict construction on any other platform seen as meaningless.

Here is what I would do:

1) Work on the Constitutional amendment, which would, admittedly, be a daunting task.

2) Competely seal the border, putting so many troops there, that illegals cannot cross.

3) Illegals with kids already here get absolutely no welfare, health care, or education. Make it so difficult for them to live here that they are actually better off where they came from, which would force them to go back.

4) Jail employers who hire illegals. Again, make it so difficult for them to live here that they are actually better off where they came from, which would force them to go back.

I know that I am about to be called cold-hearted, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. The illegal alien invasion is stressing our resources to the point that Americans suffer for it, and America's duty should be to Americans first. After all, this is America, not the United Nations.

What I outline would not only work. It would not only be perfectly legal under the Constitution, but it would not undermine the philosophy of strict construction of the Constitution of the United States.

Discussion, anyone?
i would grant conditional amnesty to all already here, then implement your suggestions.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,602
Reaction score
26,255
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
i would grant conditional amnesty to all already here, then implement your suggestions.

That would be an acceptable compromise to me, if we can't get it done any other way. There are 2 sides to every issue, and when an issue is polarized, as this one certainly is, no single side is going to win on it's own. But, working together, we can hammer out a solution that, while nobody is 100% satisfied with it, is much better than nothing, which is what we have today.

I don't like your idea as much as I like mine, but I would agree to it, if it puts us on the same side, and toward a real solution to this problem. I still might not be completely satisfied with the result, but I do understand that America was built on compromise, and all sides getting together to forge an agreement to move us forward, not talking past each other, and moving backward as a result.

Therefore, I disagree with you, but am willing to look for and find the common ground necessary for working to solve the illegal alien problem.
 
Last edited:

Tucker Case

Matthew 16:3
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
45,596
Reaction score
22,536
Location
Everywhere and nowhere
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Hosrepucky.

People BORN in the USA are citizens, period. They are as much citizens as every one of you biggoted whitebread teabaggers.

Deal with it.

This post is pure nonsense. I'm fully equipped to call it such as I am the child of a former illegal immigrant who also has political sympathies with the tea party.

The only bigotry being displayed so far in this thread as far as I can see is your presumption that:

1. Those who oppose illegal immigration are white.
2. Those who are illegal immigrants are not white
3. That "anti-anchor baby" arguments would only affect non-whites.



I'm unapologetically pro-"illegal" immigration.

I am also unapologetically against a large federal government.

These two positions are actually in agreement, not opposition.

There is no enumerated federal authority over immigration in teh constitution, which means I believe federal immigration laws are unconstitutional.

The feds only have authority over naturalization.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
81,577
Reaction score
36,618
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
These two positions are actually in agreement, not opposition.

There is no enumerated federal authority over immigration in teh constitution, which means I believe federal immigration laws are unconstitutional.

The feds only have authority over naturalization.

So, what, the feds can authorize people becoming citizens but not actually moving here? That doesn't make a lot of sense.
 
Top Bottom