Or...should they be promptly DEPORTED along with their illegal parents?
2006-10-21 03:23:35 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
No, they should not be given U.S. Citizenship.
2006-10-21 03:25:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
If they are born within US territory they are citizens. The US Constitution is absolutely clear on this. The fact that the mother is an illegal does not affect the rights of the child in this respect. Here:
Amendment XIV - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868.
1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
That's in case anyone says it's not in the US Constitution. And any attempt to deport a citizen will result in one almighty fight -- especially in the case of a child.
I am not an American. I live in the Czech Republic. So my opinion about illegals in the US is not important. But I think your Constitution is important and that is why I have read it and I have a copy so my students can also read it. It is in my opinion one of the best in the world.
Regards,
Lenky
2006-10-21 03:39:00 · answer #2 · answered by Lenky 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
its a tricky question.but i knew a newly born girl which was fostered by my friends. the baby's mother had a drink problem and the father was illegal immigrant from nepal. the end result was the father had custody but both were deported back to nepal. i dont know what happened to the mother. i felt sorry for the baby as we knew her for at least the first 2 years of her birth now we only hope that she has a good life in nepal with father. answer to the question if the parents/parent has lost the appeal to stay then the child should go..this is in London...............
2006-10-21 03:41:09 · answer #3 · answered by FRANCIS247 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
almost each and each u . s . a . recognizes jus sanguini citizenship with some proscribing transmission by fathers in basic terms, so almost each and every US-born newborn of foreign places citizen mothers and fathers may well be eligible for citizenship in a minimum of one foreign places u . s . a .. China has a clause bestowing citizenship on chinese language-born little ones who might ideally be stateless. A US Constitutional exchange might desire to contain a similar clause. the biggest situation with proscribing birthright citizenship devoid of effectual immigration administration is that variety of unlawful immigrants might improve as US-born little ones of unlawful immigrants improve up right here devoid of get entry to to Medicaid, food stamps, or different advantages that help little ones become healthy adults. the genuine culprits interior the conflict on unlawful immigration are not the immigrants themselves however the U. S. employers who hire them for extremely low wages and in many circumstances below undesirable working circumstances, shifting the genuine cost of hard paintings - feeding and sheltering the employees little ones- onto the popular public.
2016-10-15 06:29:34 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of course not. Not only because it anchors the parents to the country illegally, but can you imagine if you were only here for a funeral or something, and went into labor? How badly would that stink to happen to have your baby in American, even though you are say, Australian?? Then what?! You have no desire to stay here, you were only here for a funeral, or a graduation. That law is a huge mess.
2006-10-21 03:37:37 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's not the baby's fault its parents are illegal aliens. And it is law that if you're born in a country, ANY country, you take up citizenship from the country you're born in.
What if your mother had been in on vacation in Cuba, and she was in labor with you, and they said "You can't have your baby here. Let's ship you off to wherever you came from so that you can have your baby there." And off goes your mom--labor pains and all--back to wherever the hell you came from. Because that would be the only way you wouldn't have the country's citizenship, if you weren't born there. So to me, the question is pretty stupid, mean and discriminatory.
2006-10-21 03:31:46 · answer #6 · answered by *Jessy* 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You're talking about 'anchor baby', the 14th amendment, I think it is, and I support amending that amendment so as to shore up US immigration law...while they're at it, they need to be looking for any other loopholes...I fail to believe there's a lawyer shortage of such magnitude that they physically cannot take care of this issue...more like someone left on a coffee break, and failed to come back...
2006-10-21 04:25:44 · answer #7 · answered by gokart121 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No send them home! Why reward the parent for committing illegal acts.
2006-10-21 03:37:38 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why not? after all they were born in this country, they have the right to be americans, anyways they can't adjust the status of their parents.
2006-10-21 17:50:10 · answer #9 · answered by Alma V 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
deported, when women in prison have babies, they dont let them out, they send the baby home with family. a criminal is a criminal.
2006-10-21 04:36:47 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
They ARE given U.S Citizenship....
2006-10-21 03:25:27 · answer #11 · answered by nona 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋