You owe, big time.

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

Interesting. And in your scenario, what is the status of the American-born children of these former illegal aliens that've been granted non-voting permanent resident status?

Respectfully, I believe the text is clear and speaks for itself. And concerning non voting legal status I am not referring to the American born, nor of the children of "former illegal aliens". I refer to those who were brought here at an early age and are the children of illegal aliens. The "important restrictions" have to do with those who have a criminal history or who are otherwise a net drain to our society, such as those who perpetually take undue advantage of our social services.

The current interpretation of the 14th amendment is the law at this time concerning those who were born here. I do not relish the thought of those whose parents I would deport becoming voters, but they will and I believe nothing is going to change that current fact. I believe I will have to live with the fact of brown racists capitalizing on the deportation of these current children's parents.

So, my belief is to revisit the 14th amendment with a clear cut off date as to who has birthright citizenship as it is currently interpreted, and all those born in the US after that date can never be entitled to US birthright citizenship.

And get rid of chain migration like it's melted metal in our hands.

Then after that, move on the best we can to maintain our national sovereignty while doing the best we can to incorporate and become "us" with those aforementioned citizens who will surely and genuinely hate us for deporting their close relatives.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

It isn't. You talked about no birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegals, but under your scheme, the parents (minors who were brought here unlawfully and are now adults) are no longer illegals. They're in the country lawfully. So what is the status of the American-born children of former illegals who are now non-citizen (and non-voting) lawful residents?

[ilbegone]

You can interpret me and carry on however you like. The text is clear and I'm not going to argue it any further.

[ilbegone]

I see what you're getting at now.

This is my mode of thinking.


The ones who grow up here don't belong to another country, regardless of what both sides say. However, I don't believe they should be citizens either.

Their children will be citizens. I'm not holding my breath, but hopefully in the years between the grandparents being here illegally and their citizen grandchildren coming of age a handle is gotten on racist brown separatists, clueless or separatist "educators", and media which classifies and pushes us apart according to our skin colors and extremist presumption of ethnicity, and maybe we will have a chance of becoming us.

Do I think any of this is going to be easy? No. Not at all.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

OK. Now I understand.

I was wondering which way you were going to go because, based upon your suggestion (legalizing the illegals brought here as minors, but not granting citizenship), you are going to succeed in doing one of two things. It's unavoidable. You chose "B."

A. Create a permanent underclass in American society. People who, for generations, occupy a sub-citizen caste.

B. Delay rewarding illegal alien families for successfully violating our laws, for one generation.

[Twoller]

Nobody who has a non-citizen ancestor should be considered a US citizen. Nobody should be grandfathered. How long has this been going on? Isn't it obvious that the whole strategy is to create a situation "on the ground", to create a situation that appears to be unavoidable and uncontestable? A fait accompli?

Those who find they are not really US citizens can apply for citizenship. Anchor babies did not choose to be anchor babies. They are more eligible for citizenship then their parents, which is still to say, not very eligible at this point, but still more eligible than their parents.

[Kathy63]

The children of illegal aliens who were born here are entitled to have, and most of them DO have, dual citizenship. The children of mexicans who are here legally, perhaps even citizens also hold dual citizenship.

There is nothing wrong with sending people to a country where they are citizens whether or not they have ever been there.

We did not always allow dual citizenship. At one time claiming the citizenship of another country constituted a voluntary relinquishment of American citizenship. That would end the controversy.

[ilbegone]

B. Delay rewarding illegal alien families for successfully violating our laws, for one generation.

I don't think it's really rewarding illegal families. Those who are ultimately responsible for personal illegality will be deported, those who came here with something other than the motivations of a child.

Chain migration is ended, the parents, cousins and everyone else returns to and/or stays in their home country.

No one who ever entered the United states with adult reasoning will be eligible for citizenship, nor anyone who entered as a child after a certain cut off date (in cunjunction with correct interpretation of 14th amendment, see below) be eligible for permanent residency.

Furthermore, those who are not citizens yet are genuine criminals, those who have willfully failed to become minimally educated, and those who take undue advantage of our social services - gone faster than you can blink your eyes - regardless of their circumstances.

No more dual citizenship, no more divided loyalties, make a choice. If one chooses to be a citizen of another country, then the benefits of American citizenship doesn't apply to that person. And get the hell out, head first and airborne if necessary.

And the politicians and employers who let this mess fester for their own gain over the last twenty four years are drawn and quartered. Those are the ones who REALLY need to suffer for their sins, and I believe all too often we forget that fact.

Anchor babies did not choose to be anchor babies. They are more eligible for citizenship then their parents

I believe you are missing the point.

Generally speaking, the main difference between someone who was born here to illegal parents and someone who was brought here at a very young age by illegal parents is the current interpretation of the 14th amendment.

Furthermore, if the parents, aunts, uncles, and other persons who depend on a child's American citizenship as a springboard to America are now deportable, those children born here to illegal parents are no longer "anchor" babies.

While I firmly believe that the 14th amendment needs to be interpreted and applied in its background context (and applied in a firm "born before - born after" mode concerning children of illegals), I don't believe in revoking citizenship of anyone who has previously enjoyed birthright citizenship, which would probably include everyone at this board as well as anchor babies.

Revocation of citizenship is a can of worms, which if not very narrowly applied, could turn into a sort of French revolutionary style guillotine, a weapon applied to the "enemies" of the "cause" to begin with, then feasting on its creators. If one has studied history, one sees how that one could get out of control fast.

I would reserve revocation of citizenship for those who fraudulently obtained naturalization, including adult illegal presence prior to naturalization for others than those who grew up in the United States.

Getting back to the children of illegals. Generally speaking, if someone has grown up in the United States, they don't belong to another country. Particularly grass roots Latin America, which will reject them for their cultural American - ness, regardless of how we interpret them in the light of our own American experience.

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by ilbegone

....

Generally speaking, the main difference between someone who was born here to illegal parents and someone who was brought here at a very young age by illegal parents is the current interpretation of the 14th amendment.

Furthermore, if the parents, aunts, uncles, and other persons who depend on a child's American citizenship as a springboard to America are now deportable, those children born here to illegal parents are no longer "anchor" babies.

While I firmly believe that the 14th amendment needs to be interpreted and applied in its background context (and applied in a firm "born before - born after" mode concerning children of illegals), I don't believe in revoking citizenship of anyone who has previously enjoyed birthright citizenship, which would probably include everyone at this board as well as anchor babies.

Revocation of citizenship is a can of worms, which if not very narrowly applied, could turn into a sort of French revolutionary style guillotine, a weapon applied to the "enemies" of the "cause" to begin with, then feasting on its creators. If one has studied history, one sees how that one could get out of control fast.

I would reserve revocation of citizenship for those who fraudulently obtained naturalization, including adult illegal presence prior to naturalization for others than those who grew up in the United States.

Getting back to the children of illegals. Generally speaking, if someone has grown up in the United States, they don't belong to another country. Particularly grass roots Latin America, which will reject them for their cultural American - ness, regardless of how we interpret them in the light of our own American experience.

Nobody who has a non-citizen as an ancestor has any business claiming to be a citizen of the United States. By that I mean if you have an ancestor who claimed birth right citizenship and who did not have both parents who were citizens, then you are not a US citizen. Of course, if any of your ancestors applied for and successfully became citizens, then this would not apply to you. We are talking about birth right citizenship and the consequences of confronting the problem of the corruption of this institution. Nobody who is not the offspring of both parents who are US citizens has any business claiming birthright citizenship and none of their offspring either.

The notion that children born of non-citizen parents just naturally are Americans is utterly derelict and really just ignores the issue of ESL classes and the endless language services that are supposed to be available for "citizens". But we see another new dodge here, the idea that these anchor babies are no longer accepted "culturally" by the countries their parents, or grandparents, or great-great grandparents snuck in from. Even despite the fact that English is still a second language to them, if at all. Even if they make a big deal out of identifying with the country they came from before their host country.

But you know what? If the country they came from rejects them "culturally", so what? It's not our problem. And how many of these countries care about protecting the US from illegal immigration from those countries? Do we really care about whether Mexico does not see it's anchor babies as Mexican any more? And if that's true, then why all the fuss when Mexico sees its infestation here in the US confronted in any way?

[DerailAmnesty.com]

Originally Posted by ilbegone

I don't think it's really rewarding illegal families. Those who are ultimately responsible for personal illegality will be deported, those who came here with something other than the motivations of a child

Of course it is, and under the circumstances you have described, here's how it plays out:

Pablo and Juanita decide they want a better life for themselves and their children Paco, Pedro and Pepe. The parents decide that, in pursuit of this goal, they will unlawfully relocate to the United States and engage in whatever law violations will be necessary to perpetuate the family's existence there.

Pablo and Juanita sneak through Pima County, obtain jobs after settling themselves in an American city, and 6 months later manage to get the kids across the border, as well.

The family avoids detection for X period of time, at the conclusion of which they are "caught." Deportation proceedings for illegal residency commence immediately and it is quickly discovered that Paco and Juanita's children (now adults) were brought in as minors. Resultingly, Paco, Pedro and Pepe are granted permanent resident status, and Pablo and Juanita are deported back home (never to return).

As a direct result of their multiple law violations in pursuance of "The Better Life" objective (Conspiracy, Unlicensed Driving, Fraud, Identity Theft, Employment For Compensation While An Unlawful Resident, etc.) Pablo and Juanita have been rewarded with the following (at a bare minimum):

1. Legal residence in the U.S. for their children.
2. American citizenship for any and all of their grandchildren and family members produced by the grandchildren/later generations.
3. Multiple family members with the ability to obtain U.S. dollars and send them to Pablo and Juanita in the home country.


Essentially, the concept you authored provides the family a smaller reward than the amnesty in '86 or the Bush/Obama "comprehensive immigration reform" scheme, but the pay off for Pablo and Juanita's criminal undertaking is still considerable.