It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals

page: 1
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Arizona's Next Immigration Target: Children of Illegals


news.yahoo.com

"Anchor babies" isn't a very endearing term, but in Arizona those are the words being used to tag children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants. While not new, the term is increasingly part of the local vernacular because the primary authors of the nation's toughest and most controversial immigration law are targeting these tots - the legal weights that anchor many undocumented aliens in the U.S. - for their next move.


Buoyed by recent public opinion polls suggesting they're on the right track with illegal immigration, Arizona Republicans will likely introduce legislation this fall
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.mediaite.com
www.kpho.com
www.laprogressive.com
www.time.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Deport Children of Illegals: Hunter




posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:24 PM
link   
This proposed bill will definately be extremely controversial. Even if Arizona passes this bill, I doubt that it will take effect as it violates the 14th amendment. If this bill is passed, it will definately go to the supreme court.

Anchor babies are part of a very heated debate in this country right now. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

I can understand the reasoning behind Arizona wanting to do this. There are many people that come here with the intent to take advantage and use our law to get their foot in the door by having their child born here so the child will be an American citizen. The 14th amendment was not intended for this purpose, and it is being taken advantage of.

This situation is made worse by those representatives that cry out against deporting illegal immigrants that have children that were born here. Their stance is that by doing so we are breaking up a family. This stance has given rise to the illegals that come here with the intent to drop anchor babies.

I personally belive that one of the parents should be an American citizen, or be legally in the process of becoming an American citizen for thier children born here to be citizens. Something has to be done, this is a big problem in this country We can not continue to allow people to come here illegally and use a child as a means to stay.



news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:32 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 


We need to repeal that ammendant. As someone said in another thread you do not gain citizenship like this in Mexico. Nooo. They'll send yu and the kid back wherever you came from. Although I don't see anyone wanting to emmigrate to Mexico, lol.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by chise61
 


We need to repeal that ammendant. As someone said in another thread you do not gain citizenship like this in Mexico. Nooo. They'll send yu and the kid back wherever you came from. Although I don't see anyone wanting to emmigrate to Mexico, lol.


Actually children born of outside Mexico are Mexican citizens if their parents are Mexican citizens...also if you are born in Mexico you are automatically a Mexican citizen.

But I don't see how this law will be able to go into effect since it violates the 14th amendment. This is a federal government issue that should be dealt with in Washington and not by the states, I don't know what Arizona is trying to accomplish by bringing up this Bill. Unless they just want to stir up racial tensions even more, which they are becoming pretty good at that.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


Yes they would send them back in a heartbeat.

I do have sympathy for the children, but what they have to face is the fault of their parents that broke the law to get into this country. I have no tolerance for those that come here illegally with the purpose of having a child here to get their foot in the door.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:49 PM
link   
It needs to be done. I'm past all the "we're all immigrants" b.s. argument that people keep giving. WE CANNOT SUSTAIN THE INFLUX OF NON DOCUMENTED PEOPLE. PERIOD. I read this on a message board and figured this would be a good time to share it:



You have two families: "Joe Legal" and "Jose Illegal". Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California .

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number, and gets paid $15.00 cash "under the table".

Ready? Now pay attention...

Joe Legal: $25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year. Now take 30% away for state and federal tax; Joe Legal now has $31,231.00.

Jose Illegal: $15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600.00 per week, or $31,200.0
0 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes. Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $24,031.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible for food stamps or welfare. Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year.. Joe Legal now has $18,031.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or $14,400.00 per year. Joe Legal now has $9,631 .00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays out that $500.00 per month, or $6,000.00 per year. Jose Illegal still has $ 31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance. Joe Legal now has $7,231.00.

Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no stinkin' insurance!" and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $7,231.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month..

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school. Joe Legal pays for his children's lunches while Jose Illegal's children get a government sponsored lunch. Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program. Joe Legal's children go home.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services, but Joe paid for them and Jose did not pay.

Do you get it, now?

IF YOU AGREE, COPY & REPOST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by muse7
 


You're right, it should be dealt with at the federal level, unfortunately it's not being done.

I think that's what Arizona is trying to accomplish, is to force the feds do do their job.

I've said it before, if the feds won't do their jobs they leave the states no choice but to do it for them.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 

The Arizona law if passed would be meaningless. Either the constitution grants anchor babies citizenship or not. It doesnt. The constitution cannot be changed except by amendment.
300,000 or perhaps 500,000+ anchor babies born here each year.
Nothing is going to change.

The NWO is still in control the last time I checked.




Why is the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" ignored? www.freerepublic.com... In the US Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Court stated regarding the phrase, "subject to the jurisdiction", “The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873), the Court stated, "The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."


[edit on 12-6-2010 by RRokkyy]

[edit on 12-6-2010 by RRokkyy]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by ldyserenity
reply to post by chise61
 


We need to repeal that ammendant. As someone said in another thread you do not gain citizenship like this in Mexico. Nooo. They'll send yu and the kid back wherever you came from. Although I don't see anyone wanting to emmigrate to Mexico, lol.


I agree, your both right on this. We need to repeal that amendment.

That terrible wrong of slavery and the birth of their children has been righted. That law is no longer needed.
My feeling on this subject, secure the boarder, do not refuse medical treatment to illegals for emergency reasons, baby being born, the family is found to be illegal, the mother and baby and family all gets release to a bus ride to the boarder instead of the Chevy Suburban with tented windows and spinners.

Of-course some Politicians from another thread will call me and you a Neo-Nazi and Racist and the classic, White Supremacist. But remember this Politician is a Loving Independent / Liberal and has only your best interest at heart

S&F
just my 2 cents.

[edit on 12-6-2010 by guohua]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Another (lengthy) thread already exists in which this same topic is being discussed:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Personally, I hope they get away with it. Something needs to be done.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:20 PM
link   
True story;


My best friend (since we were 15) was born here, and her mother came here to this country legally, her father was born here from legal immigrants. Her mother's family stayed in Mexico, and she has an Aunt that made a practice of taking advantage of our laws.

This woman has five children, every single one of them is an American citizen, even though they all live in Mexico with their parents. Every time her Aunt would get pregnant she would wait until she was about 4 months along, then she would come for a visit. During her visits she would apply for, and receive benefits. She had her medical care, and the birth of her children payed for by the American tax payers. Then when her babies were about a month old she would return to Mexico. She now has five chidren that are American citizens that we were forced to foot the bill for. And the thing that really gets me (and my friend) is that her husband is the mayor of the town that they live in and they have a very big house and are wealthy out there.

Did they need help in paying for the medical care during her pregnancy and the delivery of her children, NO. Her reasoning was, why should we pay for it if I can go to America and get get better medical care, and get it for free, with the added bonus of having my children become automatic American citizens
And I heard that come straight out of her mouth.

This crap has gone on long enough, and it needs to be stopped.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by RRokkyy
 


Good post


So according to what you've posted the 14th amendment does not give babies born here form illegal immigrants automatic citizenship. If that's true then Arizona may have a good chance of having this law passed and enforced.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by hhott
 


I checked both firehoses and didn't see the thread. I guess because the thread you linked is two weeks old. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 


Now that is truly very disturbing and extremely unethical!!!! That's what gets me evryone thinks or assumes these people are poor, downtrodden, but many of them are criminal, drug cartels(Which have plenty of cash), or like your friends aunt, filthy rich abusers!!!!



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:38 PM
link   
reply to post by chise61
 


DAMN!
My neighbor 3 houses down was talking to me yesterday about something very similar to this.
He and his wife (3rd. generation Mexicans legal) both stopped going to the Catholic church down town off of 3rd ave, I think it is.
Anyway, they where tired of the priests recommending to the illegals to be sure and have their children in America and any and all family members they can get here too. The church would help when and where they can.
This was being told to the illegals in Spanish so the other English only members where unaware.
Yes, he's like me and confronted the Priests of the church and was told this is Gods work and they should all accept these people as children of Christ or some other B. S. like that.
he told the priest, No their Illegals.

Anyway to make along religious story short, they don't go to church anymore and just pry at home. I say Good For You.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:39 PM
link   
here in n.ireland nearly all female migrant \immigrant workers are either pregnant or pushing a pram with a baby in it...



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by fatdad
here in n.ireland nearly all female migrant \immigrant workers are either pregnant or pushing a pram with a baby in it...


fatdad, how does this work in your Country of N. Ireland?
Does the baby of the immigrant worker or are they Illegal like we have here?
Does the baby automatically become a citizen of you Country?
Could you explain a little more please?

[edit on 12-6-2010 by guohua]



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


That is what so many people don't understand, they are not all "poor people just trying to make a living". There are many, many devious people doing this with a whole different agenda.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I agree that something needs to be done but, of course, this cannot be done until the 14th amendment is changed. So while I completely agree with Arizona's first endeavor and defended it against accusations that it was unconstitutional, I simply don't see any defense for this bill other than it would be based on common sense (but not the law).

At the very most this could bring attention to the need of amending the constitution but that's about it at this time. And maybe that is enough.

The reason we have the 14th amendment in the first place was a reaction to a social issue at the time (the abolition of slavery and their citizenship status). That issue is not longer a problem but a new one is that is being used as an exploit from times gone by.

So amend the constitution and then we can discuss it. I fully support states ENFORCING the borders but not saying who is and isn't a citizen- but that is what this law is trying to. Even more so, it conflict with the constitution.

We cannot support the constitution only when it is convenient for us so I disapprove of this measure. But I agree with the common sense of it all- if the parents are here illegally, then there is no reason other than the 14th amendment why they should be given citizenship. They were born here via illegal means.



posted on Jun, 12 2010 @ 05:03 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

I'm sorry, you all know my stance on illegal immigration. That said you all know that I use the Constitution as a guide for nearly everything. This is one action the state of AZ cannot take. I completely oppose it as a state Act, on the grounds that it violates the Constitution. Now if they want to challenge this law at a Federal Level then I would be fine with it. I know the history of the anchor baby law, and would rather see it changed so as to close the loophole or illegals. But it must be done in a Constitutional fashion.

Whereas SB1070 is backed up by law, meaning that they can devote resources to enforce Federal law, the issue is not the same and cannot be argued on the same grounds. But the anchor baby issue is entirely a Federal issue and a state cannot violate the supremacy clause on these grounds. Either change the law or respect it.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.


[edit on 12-6-2010 by projectvxn]



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join