[OAW]

Senior Republicans have escalated the increasingly bitter fight over immigration with proposals to rewrite the US constitution to block the children of illegal aliens from obtaining citizenship.

In the latest move to inflame the racially tinged issue ahead of November's congressional and state elections, Republican senators say they intend to call hearings on overturning the 14th amendment to the constitution, which grants citizenship to anyone born in the US. Leading Republicans have denounced the provision as outdated, saying it encourages "invasion by birth canal" in which illegal immigrants smuggle themselves into the US to have "anchor babies".

The change is being pushed by the Republican whip in the Senate, John Kyl, and senator Lindsey Graham, who said that "birthright citizenship is a mistake".

"People come here to have babies," said Graham. "They come here to drop a child. It's called drop and leave. To have a child in America, they cross the border, they go to the emergency room, have a child, and that child is automatically an American citizen. That shouldn't be the case. That attracts people here for all the wrong reasons."

Kyl and Graham support changing the 14th amendment to specifically bar the children of illegal immigrants from citizenship.

"If both parents are here illegally, should there be a reward for their illegal behaviour?" said Kyl.The move has been given added momentum by the Republican leader in the Senate, Mitch McConnell, who has thrown his weight behind the proposal for hearings on the issue.

Lamar Smith, the senior Republican on the House of Representatives judiciary committee, has introduced legislation to deny citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. More than 90 members of the House are co-sponsoring the bill.

Republicans move to block US citizenship for children of illegal aliens | World news | The Guardian

Of course it takes a 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate to pass a Constitutional Amendment. Then it takes 3/4 of the State Legislatures to ratify it. Given those long odds what do you think of this latest move by the GOP?

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Anchor babies are dumbest thing. Why should the child of two non-US citizens born under (presumably) illegal circumstances gain citizenship? In what scenario is this beneficial?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Anchor babies are dumbest thing. Why should the child of two non-US citizens born under (presumably) illegal circumstances gain citizenship? In what scenario is this beneficial?

It keeps U.S. demographics young and forestalls our otherwise inevitable geopolitical decline, à la Western Europe.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It keeps U.S. demographics young and forestalls our otherwise inevitable geopolitical decline, à la Western Europe.

I don't often ask, but you'll have to cite this, if you think this is a fact, rather than a personal opinion.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't often ask, but you'll have to cite this, if you think this is a fact, rather than a personal opinion.

Over the long term, population growth correlates with GDP, which correlates with national power. The United States' share of total developed-world GDP is projected to rise through 2050, as a result primarily of higher fertility rates and immigration (immigration also being one of the factors behind the higher fertility rates) than its developed-world cohorts.

This isn't a "fact" exactly, but it's a persuasive analysis:
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pub...orfindings.pdf

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

Over the long term, population growth correlates with GDP, which correlates with national power. The United States' share of total developed-world GDP is projected to rise through 2050, as a result primarily of higher fertility rates and immigration (immigration also being one of the factors behind the higher fertility rates) than its developed-world cohorts.

This isn't a "fact" exactly, but it's a persuasive analysis:
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pub...orfindings.pdf

I'll have to read that (or likely skim) when I get home, but you're telling me we couldn't make up for the shortfall by allowing more legal immigration?

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I'll have to read that (or likely skim) when I get home, but you're telling me we couldn't make up for the shortfall by allowing more legal immigration?

Maybe, but of course that kind of proposal would result in a big political fight with organized labor in the middle of a global economic recession. I don't think that's what the advocates of the current proposal are contemplating.

EDIT: My main point is that certainly the relative openness of the United States in its citizenship guidelines and immigration (legal and not) is an important driver of national power. It has been since the beginning, when we had a whole lot of empty space and we needed to get people over here to fill it. We still have a lot of empty space (again, relatively). I didn't mean to imply that anchor babies themselves are crucial. But I don't want to see us go down the path of changing a definition of citizenship that has been so central to the American experience.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

that kind of proposal would result in a big political fight with organized labor in the middle of a global economic recession.

Elaborate, please.

[The Final Dakar]

Jesus, I didn't notice this was a poll.

[SpaceMonkey]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Elaborate, please.

We restrict immigration largely on the basis of whether or not the people coming in fall into useful categories of skilled or unskilled labor, or students. There is always domestic political pressure, especially in troubling times, to narrow the categories of acceptable legal immigrants in order to protect American jobs. Unless the GOP is going for some kind of comprehensive immigration overhaul, this proposal is, as the poll describes it, a cynical ploy.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

We restrict immigration largely on the basis of whether or not the people coming in fall into useful categories of skilled or unskilled labor, or students. There is always domestic political pressure, especially in troubling times, to narrow the categories of acceptable legal immigrants in order to protect American jobs. Unless the GOP is going for some kind of comprehensive immigration overhaul, this proposal is, as the poll describes it, a cynical ploy.

I think the likely angle here is to reduce the amount of illegals (and anchor babies) that are a drain on public resources.

Though I think the likely result is it means we can actually deport illegals we catch who have kids now.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

We restrict immigration largely on the basis of whether or not the people coming in fall into useful categories of skilled or unskilled labor, or students. There is always domestic political pressure, especially in troubling times, to narrow the categories of acceptable legal immigrants in order to protect American jobs. Unless the GOP is going for some kind of comprehensive immigration overhaul, this proposal is, as the poll describes it, a cynical ploy.

Agreed. There's no way in hell that they have the votes to amend the Constitution on this issue. Even if they have a legitimate point, to start calling for hearings on the issue during an election cycle is most transparent. IMO .. the GOP is looking for a campaign issue and they have no intention of actually amending the Constitution. Just like they have no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade which could have been done during the Bush Administration if they were serious about it. The value is in campaigning on the "problem" ... not resolving it.

OAW

[SpaceMonkey]

I'd have to see what kind of national drain "anchor babies" actually cause.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Agreed. There's no way in hell that they have the votes to amend the Constitution on this issue. Even if they have a legitimate point, to start calling for hearings on the issue during an election cycle is most transparent. IMO .. the GOP is looking for a campaign issue and they have no intention of actually amending the Constitution. Just like they have no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade which could have been done during the Bush Administration if they were serious about it. The value is in campaigning on the "problem" ... not resolving it.

OAW

Are you saying if they had the votes they would not pass this?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Jesus, I didn't notice this was a poll.

That is okay, you are forgiven my son.


Dakar: what do you feel about people who have kids while in the process of becoming a citizen or permanent resident, or here under a VISA of some sort (student, work, etc.)? The process of becoming a citizen or a permanent resident is a very long one - multiple years. It has always struck me as a little bit of a loophole that in certain circumstances people can remain in the US in good standing while they are in the process of being checked out.

It should also be understood that a non-conditional permanent resident (such as myself) is essentially a citizen minus voting rights, the ability to run for office (I believe), and the ability to sponsor relatives to come live here legally.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think the likely angle here is to reduce the amount of illegals (and anchor babies) that are a drain on public resources.

Though I think the likely result is it means we can actually deport illegals we catch who have kids now.

Well how much of a "drain" illegal immigrants are on public resources is debatable. Contrary to popular belief in some circles, illegal immigrants pay sales and property taxes without question. And if they are working under forged papers they pay payroll taxes (i.e. Income, Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment).

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Dakar: what do you feel about people who have kids while in the process of becoming a citizen or permanent resident, or here under a VISA of some sort (student, work, etc.)? The process of becoming a citizen or a permanent resident is a very long one - multiple years. It has always struck me as a little bit of a loophole that in certain circumstances people can remain in the US in good standing while they are in the process of being checked out.

I think this does not bear anything but a superficial resemblance to illegals and anchor babies.

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It should also be understood that a non-conditional permanent resident (such as myself) is essentially a citizen minus voting rights, the ability to run for office (I believe), and the ability to sponsor relatives to come live here legally.

This is important to know why?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Well how much of a "drain" illegal immigrants are on public resources is debatable. Contrary to popular belief in some circles, illegal immigrants pay sales and property taxes without question. And if they are working under forged papers they pay payroll taxes (i.e. Income, Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment).

OAW

Good point. At the end of the day I still stand by deporting illegals not because of any effects they may have (crime, etc.) but merely because they are breaking the law, and their continued presence is a slap in the face of anyone who has migrated here properly.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Are you saying if they had the votes they would not pass this?

I really don't think they would. Though I will say that they would go there waaaaayyyyy before they actually tried to deport all the illegal immigrants. Too many people like the low prices at the grocery store for their fruits and veggies that illegal immigrants harvest. Too many like having access to relatively inexpensive day laborers.. And way too many affluent people like having access to relatively inexpensive maids and nannies.

As long as the conservative base gets all fired up about it the GOP leadership will stir the pot. But mark my word ... nothing substantive will change anytime soon.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Good point. At the end of the day I still stand by deporting illegals not because of any effects they may have (crime, etc.) but merely because they are breaking the law, and their continued presence is a slap in the face of anyone who has migrated here properly.

I suppose I'm of the view that the response to "illegal" activity should be proportionate to the problems that it actually causes. After all ... jaywalking is "illegal".

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I really don't think they would. Though I will say that they would go there waaaaayyyyy before they actually tried to deport all the illegal immigrants. Too many people like the low prices at the grocery store for their fruits and veggies that illegal immigrants harvest. Too many like having access to relatively inexpensive day laborers.. And way too many affluent people like having access to relatively inexpensive maids and nannies.

As long as the conservative base gets all fired up about it the GOP leadership will stir the pot. But mark my word ... nothing substantive will change anytime soon.

OAW

You may be right. When this was an issue during the Bush administration, I was thought it was interesting no one wanted to address one of the obvious sources of illegal immigration, the companies that were employing them.

I have no idea what kind of impact deporting all illegals (or, more likely, just making it easier) would have, but I am fine with the idea of guest worker programs.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I suppose I'm of the view that the response to "illegal" activity should be proportionate to the problems that it actually causes. After all ... jaywalking is "illegal".

OAW

Yeah, Mexicans are just jaywalking our borders...

Sorry, but I think that's a terrible argument. If you think the impact illegal immigrants have on our country is equal to any person who jaywalks, I think you greatly underestimate them.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You may be right. When this was an issue during the Bush administration, I was thought it was interesting no one wanted to address one of the obvious sources of illegal immigration, the companies that were employing them.

Well that would be too much like right.

I think the reason for this disconnect though is that the illegal immigration debate in the US always seems to devolve into an emotional, "us vs. them" issue. And the reality is that the vast majority of employers of illegal immigrants fall into the same "us" camp of those screaming the loudest about it. So the ire is not directed towards those that enable illegal immigration in the first place. Instead, it's directed at "them". Which only makes sense if the underlying motivation extends above and beyond the issue of "legality".

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I have no idea what kind of impact deporting all illegals (or, more likely, just making it easier) would have, but I am fine with the idea of guest worker programs.

Makes sense. But of course, that would be labeled as "amnesty" by many on the right. So common sense solutions are put out of reach because there's too much political mileage to be had doing the opposite.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yeah, Mexicans are just jaywalking our borders...

Sorry, but I think that's a terrible argument. If you think the impact illegal immigrants have on our country is equal to any person who jaywalks, I think you greatly underestimate them.

I think the response to "illegal activity" should be proportionate to the problems that it actually causes. The analogy about jaywalking was there merely to illustrate that point. Let's not lose sight of that and start quibbling about whether or not illegal immigration is on the same level as jaywalking.

To that end ....

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey

I'd have to see what kind of national drain "anchor babies" actually cause.

Agreed.

Because IMO I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill about it for political purposes.

OAW

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think this does not bear anything but a superficial resemblance to illegals and anchor babies.

Well, I've been wondering about how difficult it would be to just fill in some bogus info in an application, shell out the money, get your temporary status, and then take advantage of the system however you wanted to?

This is important to know why?

Not all that important, but I've had some people that seem to conflate the notion that I'm not a citizen with questioning my legal status.

[finboy]

Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey 

It keeps U.S. demographics young and forestalls our otherwise inevitable geopolitical decline, à la Western Europe.

I can see the logic in this. Your understanding of it is consistent with what I've heard & read elsewhere.

Given the way that the immigration system is being abused in this country, and the lack of enforcement at the federal, state, and local level, I wish the anchor baby thing could be dealt with.

The delivery rooms down here, and emergency rooms for that matter, are full of illegals giving birth to anchor chiddren. In Dallas it's worse than at the border, believe it or not. During Hurricane Ike, the ONE operating room in the Houston metro area that remained open throughout was the UTMB delivery theatre on Galveston Island. Because of the backlog of illegals. Until you've seen it first-hand, you won't believe it. Prenatal (thank goodness) as well -- covered up taking care of illegals.

I understand why they want to come here, and why they want their kids born here. I would do it too if I were in their situation, most likely. But that doesn't make it right to take my tax money, and my social services, and put their kids ahead of my kids for medical care and education dollars. It's just not right. My kids shouldn't have less because someone came here from Mexico.

I don't know what the solution is, but what's happening now ain't working. If the economy doesn't pick back up we'll have lots of unemployed illegals (even MORE than hang around at the Home Depot all day). Something's gotta give.

[CreepDogg]

Why do we have to change the constitution and redefine citizenship to fix this? Seems like there's a much simpler solution: if you're illegal and you have a baby here, baby can stay, but you can't. Either leave the baby with someone legal, or take baby with you - your choice. If you take baby, baby is still a citizen and can return as such. Done.

[besson3c]

What is the cost/benefit analysis of something like this?

Making somebody a citizen at birth is easy, cheap, little paperwork to process, etc. Having some sort of bureaucratic body to register babies that have been born otherwise, how would that be done? Have an INS guy at the hospital? Some sort of national registry? What is the cost of this? What do we get out of doing this in comparison to the cost?

[OAW]

Better yet .... if you are really serious about illegal immigration ... start tossing the employers of illegal immigrants in jail. They are violating the law just as much as the illegal immigrants. And it's a lot less of them so it would be a more effective use of limited law enforcement resources to target the employers rather than the millions of illegal immigrants. They come for the jobs. No jobs ... no problem. Unless of course the issue is more about anti-Hispanic sentiment than it is about "breaking the law".

OAW

[finboy]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Why do we have to change the constitution and redefine citizenship to fix this? Seems like there's a much simpler solution: if you're illegal and you have a baby here, baby can stay, but you can't. Either leave the baby with someone legal, or take baby with you - your choice. If you take baby, baby is still a citizen and can return as such. Done.

Not practical, never happen. We won't split families apart, and then we're back to square one.

Prevent the practice in the first place or NOTHING works.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by finboy 

We won't split families apart, and then we're back to square one.

We wouldn't be. They're more than welcome to take baby with them on their way out. Their choice.

Prevent the practice in the first place or NOTHING works.

You're going to prevent people from reproducing? Good luck with that.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

I agree with CreepDog, having a minor child that's a citizen does not give the parents a right to stay in the country.

And the kid is responsible for paying for the medical bill if the parents don't one the spot. Which you can obviously only enforce if he comes back to the country.

[brassplayersrock²]

It’d certainly help school systems to not allow anchor babies anymore. So many of my students in my first district had parents who came over, and are most likely still illegals, and had a kid or two. Those kids were usually the really low students due to parents not speaking english at home ect.

Luckily my last school adopted a “If you come to a meeting, or to the office and don’t know English, then oh well” approach. Also a “If you have a question, come yourself, and not make your kid ask for you” policy.

It was horrible teaching in that school due to parents being so arrogant and not wanting to learn english to help their kids.

[Dork.]

The GOP intends to make immigration a major election issue in 2010, just as the gay marriage issue basically re-elected George Bush in 2004.

If there's one good thing about this proposal, it's that there are lawmakers who understand that you can't just ignore things you don't like in the Constitution, and that there is an amendment process available to change it.

[BadKosh]

Perhaps after the elections they can close the damn borders? Lets start there. Then throw out the law breakers and repeat invaders.
Those who have come here illegally should never get the chance to be US citizens.
Illegals who protest openly should be deported ASAP, and those funding the protests or tampering in US policies need to have their members rounded up and their property seized.
Same for CAIR.

[Atheist]

Born in the USA = US citizen is an antiquated idea. It needs to go. I agree with BadKosh that those in the US illegally should not get a chance to become citizens (or legal residents for that matter).

Personally, I'm conflicted since any chance I have of returning to the US will be the result of a comprehensive immigration reform bill that will most certainly include the legalization of undocumented immigrants. Congress will never pass the UAFA unless it is included with a broader reform bill.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by OAW 

I think the response to "illegal activity" should be proportionate to the problems that it actually causes. The analogy about jaywalking was there merely to illustrate that point. Let's not lose sight of that and start quibbling about whether or not illegal immigration is on the same level as jaywalking.

To that end ....

If illegal immigration has little negative impact, why do we have standards and a vetting process? These people are bucking the system for their own interests and that's not right. Not to mention they don't deserve special exceptions just because they happen to live near a border that makes their actions easy.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Why do we have to change the constitution and redefine citizenship to fix this? Seems like there's a much simpler solution: if you're illegal and you have a baby here, baby can stay, but you can't. Either leave the baby with someone legal, or take baby with you - your choice. If you take baby, baby is still a citizen and can return as such. Done.

Stupid, bitter. And we don't need to flood orphanages with abandoned anchor babies.

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Perhaps after the elections they can close the damn borders? Lets start there.

Good luck with that. If it didn't happen between 2000-2008, it's never going to.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Stupid, bitter. And we don't need to flood orphanages with abandoned anchor babies.

Why is it any more stupid or bitter than demanding to amend the constitution to redefine citizenship? Either way the end result is the same - we want the ability to deport illegals, regardless of whether they have kids, right? And either way, it removes the incentive for people to come to the US to have anchor babies if they know they can be deported anyway.

As for flooding orphanages, you're saying it's more likely that people would leave behind a baby just based on the baby's citizenship status?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Why is it any more stupid or bitter than demanding to amend the constitution to redefine citizenship? Either way the end result is the same - we want the ability to deport illegals, regardless of whether they have kids, right? And either way, it removes the incentive for people to come to the US to have anchor babies if they know they can be deported anyway.

As for flooding orphanages, you're saying it's more likely that people would leave behind a baby just based on the baby's citizenship status?

The constitution is a piece of paper that outlines some rules. If you think amending it to close a loophole is stupid or bitter, then you obviously have some issue with the original law to begin with.

Illegals immigrants are living breathing beings with emotions and, I'd argue, some basic rights. To me, ripping a family away from a child is inhuman. Your option feels like we're entering some kind of Sophie's Choice territory here.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

The constitution is a piece of paper that outlines some rules. If you think amending it to close a loophole is stupid or bitter, then you obviously have some issue with the original law to begin with.

'Close a loophole'? No. It would be a redefinition of citizenship. We have a basic rule of 'Born in the USA' = 'citizen'. If we want to start adding asterisks to that, I think that's a pretty short-sighted approach. If we're saying that rule no longer applies, then we have to have a new rule - i.e. 'redefinition'.

If we want to do that because we think there's a fundamental issue with the way we define citizenship, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to amend it. If we want to do that to feel justified in kicking out a few more Mexicans, then yeah, I think that's stupid and bitter.

Illegals immigrants are living breathing beings with emotions and, I'd argue, some basic rights. To me, ripping a family away from a child is inhuman. Your option feels like we're entering some kind of Sophie's Choice territory here.

How so? They have the exact same choice they'd have if baby is not a citizen - i.e. take baby with on the way out. Nobody is 'ripping the child away' from them. There's just another option if baby is a citizen.

And yes, I agree illegal immigrants are living breathing beings with emotions and some basic rights. But we seem to be going down the path of wanting to deport them all. Fine - if we're going to go there - I'm just saying we don't have to amend the constitution to do it. We can accomplish the exact same thing with policy adjustments if we wanted to. So the amendment gobbledygook is nothing more than political grandstanding.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Illegals who protest openly should be deported ASAP, and those funding the protests or tampering in US policies need to have their members rounded up and their property seized.

Are illegals now Foreign Agents?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

'Close a loophole'? No. It would be a redefinition of citizenship. We have a basic rule of 'Born in the USA' = 'citizen'. If we want to start adding asterisks to that, I think that's a pretty short-sighted approach. If we're saying that rule no longer applies, then we have to have a new rule - i.e. 'redefinition'.

Yes, I imagine when you close a loophole it may cause redefinitions. Kinda like how the term marriage suddenly only applied to what happened between a man and a woman only a few years back.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

If we want to do that because we think there's a fundamental issue with the way we define citizenship, then I think it's perfectly reasonable to amend it. If we want to do that to feel justified in kicking out a few more Mexicans, then yeah, I think that's stupid and bitter.

I asked for any information as to why this might be a beneficial rule. So far all I've heard is "we need young people" which isn't exactly a convincing argument for allowing illegal immigration. If we are that desperate for young bodies, then maybe we should revise our immigration laws in respect to that.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

How so? They have the exact same choice they'd have if baby is not a citizen - i.e. take baby with on the way out. Nobody is 'ripping the child away' from them. There's just another option if baby is a citizen.

If the baby is not a citizen, why would we not deport it?

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

And yes, I agree illegal immigrants are living breathing beings with emotions and some basic rights. But we seem to be going down the path of wanting to deport them all. Fine - if we're going to go there - I'm just saying we don't have to amend the constitution to do it. We can accomplish the exact same thing with policy adjustments if we wanted to. So the amendment gobbledygook is nothing more than political grandstanding.

I'd welcome you posting your policy suggestions here.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Yes, I imagine when you close a loophole it may cause redefinitions. Kinda like how the term marriage suddenly only applied to what happened between a man and a woman only a few years back.

I asked for any information as to why this might be a beneficial rule. So far all I've heard is "we need young people" which isn't exactly a convincing argument for allowing illegal immigration. If we are that desperate for young bodies, then maybe we should revise our immigration laws in respect to that.

I'd welcome you posting your suggestion for new citizenship requirements here.

If the baby is not a citizen, why would we not deport it?

Um, who is saying we wouldn't?

If baby is not a citizen, mom and dad and baby get deported.

If baby is a citizen, mom and dad get deported, and can take baby with. They're the parents, after all.

I'd welcome you posting your policy suggestions here.

I thought that's what I did.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I'd welcome you posting your suggestion for new citizenship requirements here.

Born to at least one american citizen.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

Um, who is saying we wouldn't?

If baby is not a citizen, mom and dad and baby get deported.

If baby is a citizen, mom and dad get deported, and can take baby with. They're the parents, after all.

Then I guess it's not the exact same choice, seeing as the first option isn't a choice.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I thought that's what I did.

I thought you were referring to something new. Something that didn't possibly involve orphan babies.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Born to at least one american citizen.

OK, so we still have citizenship by birthright. I don't really see how that's any better. What about a baby born in the US to 2 legal immigrants?

Then I guess it's not the exact same choice, seeing as the first option isn't a choice.

It's the exact same option, plus an additional option.

I thought you were referring to something new. Something that didn't possibly involve orphan babies.

Nope.

I thought illegal immigrants were thinking, feeling human beings with emotion. If so, then why would they be any more likely to abandon their baby than anyone else just because they're getting kicked out of the country?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

OK, so we still have citizenship by birthright. I don't really see how that's any better. What about a baby born in the US to 2 legal immigrants?

Good call, fine by me.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

It's the exact same option, plus an additional option.

It's not an option. Option implies there is a choice, and in the first situation there is none.

Originally Posted by CreepDogg 

I thought illegal immigrants were thinking, feeling human beings with emotion. If so, then why would they be any more likely to abandon their baby than anyone else just because they're getting kicked out of the country?

It depends on why they came here. I'd have to think there would be some that felt that a lone future in the US is better than being together in the country they just tried desperately (and possibly risked their lives) to escape.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

It's not an option. Option implies there is a choice, and in the first situation there is none.

Hobson's choice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: oops almost forgot: Hobson's choice - Conservapedia

[The Final Dakar]

So what's the illegal immigrants other option to being deported?

[Uncle Skeleton]

I'm guessing you didn't read the link(?)

[finboy]

Originally Posted by brassplayersrock² 

Luckily my last school adopted a “If you come to a meeting, or to the office and don’t know English, then oh well” approach. Also a “If you have a question, come yourself, and not make your kid ask for you” policy.

It was horrible teaching in that school due to parents being so arrogant and not wanting to learn english to help their kids.

I hope the ACLU doesn't get ahold of that one. Many Lefty people consider that kind of thing a serious violation of someone's rights. That opinion is also popular with people who live in places where there are like 2 illegal aliens.

Personally, I say we card them at the office door, but it will never happen. The idea that we have to provide education and everything else for minor children of illegal immigrants is INSANE. Case in point: none of that happens across the border on the other side. If you're in Mexico illegally and they find out, you're TOAST.

Down here in Texas we're making all kinds of progressive in-roads teaching using both English AND Spanish. And forget getting a teaching job in some places if you don't speak Messican. Horrible precedent we're setting.

I can say that I've seen a progression from "I want my kids speaking English ASAP" to "F*ck you, gringo." [The last one en espanol, of course]. 25 years ago, when the first amnesty was passed, the immigrant community seemed to want to assimilate and many of them pushed their kids away from language identity. Especially Asian families and Eastern Europeans that I knew. "Heritage" and cultural sensitivity was telling their children about how f*cking horrible it was in the old country, and how lucky they were to be here.