Getting rid of "Anchor Babies" loophole

[MyOwnDrum]

A huge problem with the anchor baby loophole is that it contributes to the whole atmosphere where the Mexican American community is at odds with U.S. law. What person, especially the family oriented Mexican culture, would want their parent shipped back to the homeland? Hence, you have demonstrations in the street anytime there is an attempt to clamp down on this problem.

These people love their families. They really have Old World respect and, yes, veneration for their parents and grandparents. It's an admirable strength of their culture. But it's creating a huge problem for us.

 

[Tucker Case]

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

Once a person is a citizen, they have a right to reside here. Only they can make that determination, though. The feds are not authorized to force them to move here.

Residency is a right of a citizen.

Authorizing someone to become a citizen is granting them these rights. Nobody "authorizes" them to have residency. They authorize them to have all of the rights enjoyed by citizens.

Having the right to residency does not mean that one must partake of said, right however. The only person who "authorizes" the residency of a citizen, is the citizen himself.


For non-citizens, however, residency is not a right, it is a privilege. For them, external authorization is required for residency. But residency alone does not grant citizenship.


The Feds are explicitly authorized to make uniform rules about the requirements to become a citizen, but they are NOT explicitly authorized to make uniform rules about the requirements to become a resident.

Naturalization laws can have certain requirements regarding residency in order achieve naturalization, obviously. But the idea that this should extend to them being able to have certain requirements in order for non-citizens to achieve residency is absurd.



To give an analogy:

Imagine a large building filled with condos. The entire property is collectively owned by all of the individual condo owners. There are certain rules that can be enforced by the collective association of owners. Think of the people within this collective association as the citizens of the condo association..

They can determine who is qualified to become part of the association, for example. The requirements are that one must own one of the units. Someone does not need to reside in the condo to be a citizen of the association. And someone who resides in a condo is not automatically granted citizenship in the association.

The collective association does not have the authority to decide who may or may not reside in any particular unit. Residency is determined by the individual owner of the unit. If a citizen of the association chooses to have his girlfriend to reside in his unit with him, that is his right.

His girlfriend cannot become a citizen of the association without meeting the requirements for citizenship, though. The owner of the unit cannot make her a citizen of the association on his own. Her residency alone does not qualify her for the task.

Conversely, a citizen of the association can choose to not to allow anyone who isn't a citizen of the association to reside in his unit. The association does not have the authority to say "We've collectively decided this person should be a resident in your unit." The right to determine residency of that unit is not held by anyone but the owner himself.

Also, once a person is a citizen of the association, they are allowed to move into their unit and the association cannot prevent them from doing so.

Once citizenship is acquired, residency becomes a right. Until then, it is merely a privilege that can only be grated by the individual owners and not the collective association.


Federal residency laws involve the Feds telling the States:

1. We've decided that you must accept this non-citizen person as a resident of your state. If you don't like it, tough ****.

2. We've decided that you do not have the right to determine who is a non-citizen resident of your particular State. If you want a non-citizen to be granted residency and we say no, too bad.


I don't see how allowing the Feds to do that makes any sense at all. I mean, if I bought a condo and they told me that at any given time, they can allow someone to live in my condo against my will as well as prevent me from allowing someone of my choosing from living in my condo with me.

I don't think anyone would want that.

Yet here we are allowing the Federal government to dictate to the states that they must allow certain non-citizens to be residents and preventing them from allowing other non-citizens from being residents.

 

[Just MY Opinion]

Don't believe an ammendment is needed....the Constitution says: "parents must be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States....if they are here illegally, they are not subject to US jurisdiction and in fact are subject to the juristiction of their Native Country..........does their Embassy not try to assist then if they get in trouble here? I beleive it would only take a good case before the US Supreme Court to clear this issue up.......and if not there, then State by State to claim the Federal Government is not enforcing the current laws and/or Constitution........

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?

 

[The Uncola]

People born in the United States are called citizens not loopholes, just because they have brown skin and you are a bigot doesn't change that. Why is it some people want to act as if The Constitution is sacrosanct until is says something that blows their personal prejudices out of the water?

 

[MyOwnDrum]

People born in the United States are called citizens not loopholes, just because they have brown skin and you are a bigot doesn't change that. Why is it some people want to act as if The Constitution is sacrosanct until is says something that blows their personal prejudices out of the water?

And why is it that people have to pull the race card every time someone disagrees with their POV?

 

[Just MY Opinion]

UNCOLA,
What you fail to understand is only people "Lawfully" born in the United States are Citizens....just because the Liberal Left sees it differently does not change the facts.....The 14th Ammednment was mis-interperted & is being challenged to remove the provision that allows for "Anchor Babies"........Name me one other Country in the world that will allow Citizenship to a baby just because it was born within that Country.......Also, why is the United States the Country of Choice for the hispanics to drop their babies in? Why not go to China instead? The U.S. taxpayers can no longer afford to fund the illegal invasion of this Country. Go back to Mexico & clean up your own Country and make it a worthwhile Country to live in. One does not have to be a bigot to oppose those that break our laws and expect the taxpayers of this Country tonot object.

People born in the United States are called citizens not loopholes, just because they have brown skin and you are a bigot doesn't change that. Why is it some people want to act as if The Constitution is sacrosanct until is says something that blows their personal prejudices out of the water?

 

[jujuman13]

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.

One might ask you what Jobs the troops returned from these 4 wars would have when the number of jobless already touches an official 9.7% and unofficially can be as high as 17% in certain area's?

 

[Just MY Opinion]

jujuman,
While what you say has merit and the fact that those wars and contracts have been a drain on the US funds, likewise the cost of the illegal aliens that have "INVADED" this Country are a daily drain on ALL of our resources, not just financial.......when you are at sea and your boat is leaking, it is more important to fix the leak than "bail" the water as the inflow will exceed what you can expell....same for the illegal aliens....

One might ask you what Jobs the troops returned from these 4 wars would have when the number of jobless already touches an official 9.7% and unofficially can be as high as 17% in certain area's?