The parent's country doesn't want them, or what?
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2006/12/19/whiner-chorus-tunes-up/
2006-12-23 06:35:22 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
No there's no reason what-so-ever as to why they can't be deported with their parents. They don't like that option because they are using the kids as their anchor to be here while they are saying they want a better life for their kids. As a parent myself.....if life there was so god awful and I was truely doing it for the sake of my children....I would rather be deported and give custody of my children to a citizen or legal relative than to have my child live in fear each day for my stupid decision. I wouldn't have come here illegally to begin with because I wouldn't want to put my child in jeopardy and I wouldn't want them growing up thinking it was ok to break the law. They keep saying they have wonderful family values but many leave their kids in Mexico to come here and drop an anchor. They leave parents and wives so I don't buy the tearing the family apart routien a bit. If parenthood was enough of an excuse to be exempt from any punishment for a crime.....our jails would probably be fairly empty. Commiting crimes tears families apart and it's something that needs to be thought about BEFORE you drag your kids in the middle of it.
2006-12-23 08:35:05 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
The Constitution was written for the Africans who were brought to this country as slaves. They didn't have a choice to come to this country and because of that they were given citizenship after the Civil War. Someone took that amendment and interpreted it the way it is taken today. As far as I am concerned we should send the babies back with the parents. They try to make everyone feel bad by accusing US of wanting to separate them from their child so I say send the child back too. When that child becomes 18 they can have the choice to come here.
2016-05-23 02:07:31 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well I'm southamerican and I live in Canada LEGALLY (and I'm white for those who think anyone bleow the border with mexico looks like George Lopez) and I'm not from mexico (this may come as I surprise for you rednecks who think anythong below the States is mexico) but I have to say in theory it shouldn't be a problem for illegal aliens to take their children with them, I mean, THEY ARE AMERICANS!!, they can grow up and then come back to the States and live there LEGALLY!!!. What's the deal? I personally believe there are two direct responsables for illegal aliens: THE GOVERMENT OF MEXICO AND THE ONES IN MOST OF THE SOUTHAMERICANS COUNTRIES (except for Chile and Argentina who are great countries BTW and I'm from colombia so I'm not kissing as* to my own nation) because their countries suck socially and economically and force their people to emigrate in search of jobs. Very few people want to live their own country and I think is a lot of crap when president fox from mexico bitches about the treat that americans give to illegal aliens and how it would be wrong to put them in jail for violate the law, do you know how mexicans treat illegal aliens from honduras or guatemala in their territory?, well, let me tell you it makes what americans do to illegal mexicans look like a SPA!!! The SECOND PARTY RESPONSABLE for illegal aliens are AMERICAN EMPLOYERS who keep hiring illegals no matter what, if there wasn't an employment offer for illegals they wouldn't cross the border, it's the same we drugs, americans ***** about colombia for the drug production but if americans weren't such f**ked up junkies that keep buying cocaine, colombian drug lord wouldn't have a buisness. Anyway I rest my case.
2006-12-23 08:00:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I don't have a problem with returning the kids to their parents home country.
Just because they were born here does not make them citizens.
The children of legal U.S. citizens are not citizens of the U.S. either,but are allowed to live here with their parents until they reach legal age of adulthood (18) and are given U.S. citizenship.
The U.S. Congress passed immigration laws back about 1791 establishing the legal process to become a U.S. citizen. At some point in time,the laws were either suspended,repealed or just ignored.
It was during the Clinton administration that an evening news broadcast stated that the U.S. has no immigration laws.
2006-12-23 07:33:35 · answer #4 · answered by Ralph T 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
The parents have automaric rights to take their kids with them, aqnd once that child turns 18 years of age, then that child can try and get their parents ststus adjusted. As for the other country, they don't have a choice.
2006-12-23 06:47:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Mexican is NOT synonymous with illegal, WE Are NATIVES TOO. We were here first and will always be here. We are not going anywhere, to suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Not all Hispanics in this country are illegal and I for one am sick and tired of idiots "complimenting" me on how well I speak English, or asking how difficult it was for my parents to cross the border. ( We got in car and drove) I am legal. I am NOT an anomaly. You are asking for a native free U.S. , and that is like asking for a Asian free Japan or Celtic free Ireland. It's simple anthropology losers.
2006-12-23 07:15:08 · answer #6 · answered by CandyCain 3 · 3⤊ 2⤋
No, I don't think so,,, I do think that the children should be with their parents. When the children grow up then decide where they want to live.
2006-12-23 07:32:08 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
I don't feel that article 14 applies to anchor babies...they are nothing more than a loophole for the women that are trying to get something for free.
2006-12-23 06:42:29 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think that they should be deported, anchor babies and all.
I think that the idea of putting the baby up for adoption isn't a bad one, either. That would stop anchor babies, wouldn't it?
2006-12-23 07:28:32 · answer #9 · answered by <3 The Pest <3 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
We could always put her in jail and then put her son up for adoption. I just think it would be cheaper to send her home and put her son up for adoption. I lay ya five to one odds that she will never try the "anchor baby" stunt again.
2006-12-23 06:39:32 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋