I am talking about anchor babies.
2006-11-20 10:20:50 · 27 answers · asked by someguy00 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
Ireland, my ancestors came here legally.
2006-11-20 10:29:30 · update #1
How about this the parents and the child have to go back. When the child reaches the age of maturity. He will be allowed back in the country at that time with the right every other american citizen has. It's not fair to punish the child for the crimes of the parents. It's not fair to reward criminals because of a child. This will also cut back on anchor babies.
2006-11-22 19:28:42 · answer #1 · answered by wondermom 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The way I see it is that the 14th amendment is being mis-interpreted. It needs to be followed not changed. In Texas there is currently talk of a state wide ban on state funding for anchor babies. I am pleased with this potential law.
2006-11-21 18:39:56 · answer #2 · answered by joeandhisguitar 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely. This was not the intent of the framers, that people who had broken the law and were residing illegally in the country could have children who would then have automatic citizenship.
The only change needed is to add 'born to parents who are legally resident'.
This amendment has been proposed in the House, but was blocked by the current ruling party (the Republicans) from coming to a vote. Maybe the Dems will do better.
2006-11-20 10:25:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
Not a change to the Amendment, simply a firm interpretation of the legal wording , which has allowed many to use this amendment to bypass American immigration laws, thus the "Anchor baby" syndrome.
2006-11-20 11:38:26 · answer #4 · answered by Cheeto 1 · 3⤊ 1⤋
i think of we ought to consistently think of long and not ordinary earlier tinkering with the form. The ideal court docket has by no skill promptly hung on in spite of if the 'citizenship by utilising delivery' area of the 14th exchange skill that citizenship is granted even the place the presence of the newborn's pregnant mom could be barred by utilising regulation. besides the undeniable fact that, i could handle immigration rules to declare that the spectacular of 'family members reunification' which provides a citizen the skill to deliver in family members which incorporates mum and dad shouldn't persist with to everybody who did not have a minimum of one unconditional everlasting resident determine or citizen determine on the time of their delivery. That avoids the constitutional situation and addresses the 'gaming' with our regulations.
2016-10-22 10:57:11 · answer #5 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anchor babies are a major problem with illegal immigration and the issue should be addressed. I think if both parents are here illegally the child should not receive automatic citizenship.
2006-11-20 10:24:26 · answer #6 · answered by Slimsmom 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
They need to go back to the original intentions of the Founding Fathers. the 14th amendment was never intended to allow illegals to stay...at this point the wording needs to be firmed up since Congress will NEVER believe it otherwise.
If the illegals would spend one half the effort to fix their own country as they expend trying to come here and stay here, Mexico would not be a 3rd world country!
2006-11-20 10:34:51 · answer #7 · answered by susancnw 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Yes 100%
2006-11-20 10:23:03 · answer #8 · answered by TEXAS TREY 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely. The 14th was inteded to integrate slaves into US society. The fact that poloticians allow illegal river crickets to hide behind it is shameful
2006-11-20 10:23:30 · answer #9 · answered by God of Fire 2 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Si Senor
2006-11-20 10:24:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋