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.
Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by daskakik
When you look on it realistically, why have the laws to begin with?
Especially when those who create the law have no desire to enforce them..
His parents were here ILLEGALLY when he was born. Can you comprehend that word? It is my contention that since he gained his citizenship as the result of a crime, he received an unlawful, and certainly unwarranted benefit. The "anchor baby" law needs to be changed. Stop playing the race card, and use real arguments. His parents broke our laws, as a result he gained citizenship. He was rewarded for his parents breaking our laws. Had his parents broken into your home, stole everything you owned, and gave it to him, would you want him to be able to keep it all?
Originally posted by PhantomLimb
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
They should have been deported, and you(as the anchor baby) should not have been given citizenship.
Originally posted by aayon35
reply to post by JacKatMtn
My parents came into the US from Mexico with green cards but stayed after the time expired. They always paid for taxes and even bought a home recently.When I was born they received their papers.
Well, he was born here so he's an American citizen. Racist much?
Ok, so according to your theory can we deport non-producers? even if they are citizens? Because I would be ok with that.
Originally posted by aureusleo8
An undocumented immigrant such as him should not under any circumstances be deported--
he is a valuable citizen who has learned (very well too might I add) English, and contributes to American society...unlike most people who are actually born in this country. Sure he violated the law, but the law is very erroneous in this case, it makes very little sense to give up a contributor just because they were not born in this country. The immigration laws desperately needs to be made more elaborate, coherent and applicable to reality.
Agreed. First stop the influx of new illiegals.
Originally posted by JacKatMtn
reply to post by Maxmars
What's a reasonable solution..? Isn't that what should be going on here?
We have a FED gov't who is tasked with the responsibility to uphold and enforce the law of the land..
OK, it's beyond obvious that it has been lax since the current laws were made during the Reagan administration..
What I propose may be simplistic, since I am a hillbilly
First.. secure the borders..
No!!!! We tried this already back in the 1980s. Look where it got us. HELL NO! Send them all back, seize any and all assets to fund their repatriation. NEVER allow those here now a chance to gain citizenship ever.
Second.. pass new legislation that gives amnesty.. to the illegals within the country now, that amnesty is only to allow the illegals to come forward and start the process to become legal, I would exclude any illegals who have been CONVICTED of a felony.. Give everyone a period of say 120 days to come forward and get their forms filed etc.. to achieve a green card, with the opportunity to achieve citizenship down the road through the proper channels..
No. It was tried, it failed. Now illegals expect we will do it again. No. Round them up, send them home. Give them 90 days to self repatriate at their own expense. If they do this, then they can apply normally and follow legal procedures to return. If we have to find them ourselves, we seize every single asset. We revoke the citizenship of the anchor babies, and they CAN NEVER RETURN.
Third.. once the 120 amnesty period is over, it's over... those who are still here illegally, would have no recourse and be deported in haste to wherever they came..
Fourth.. the FEDERAL government does it's job and enforces the law of the land. like it used to..
This whole situation falls at the feet of them IMO... not on those who saw this intentional lapse in enforcement to come to this country..
Am I presenting a reasonable solution here? if not, what can be tweaked to make it so?
Originally posted by sonofliberty1776
His parents were here ILLEGALLY when he was born. Can you comprehend that word? It is my contention that since he gained his citizenship as the result of a crime, he received an unlawful, and certainly unwarranted benefit. The "anchor baby" law needs to be changed. Stop playing the race card, and use real arguments. His parents broke our laws, as a result he gained citizenship. He was rewarded for his parents breaking our laws. Had his parents broken into your home, stole everything you owned, and gave it to him, would you want him to be able to keep it all?