08-20-2015, 12:52 AM
|
|
|
Confirmed User
Industry Role:
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: California
Posts: 3,068
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
A minor can't legally just live on it's own. I don't care how many children show up.
If a child runs away from home, they are returned to the parents.
|
Not if you can't find the parents. Those children become wards of the State.
What is the US supposed to do...go to whatever country they think the parent is located in, find them, and force them to take custody of their US citizen child?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
That would be my whole argument if I were to make one against the "anchor babies". Their parents are illegal. The child would be a U.S. citizen. But the child has to live with it's parents or if he/she has other family in the U.S. they could live with them.
But the parents? Send 'em back home. And take their kid with them. When he/she is 18 years old, then he/she could come back.
That makes the most common sense to me.
|
Like I said above, the child does not have to live with the parents if those parents can't be found. You can't seriously think the US government will send thousands of government agents to span foreign countries in search of these absentee parents, and if they find them, force those parents to re-take custody of their child? How would they even force that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
It seems ass-backwards to allow people to enter the country to shit out a baby so the parents themselves can now stay.
Makes no sense in any way.
Don't you agree? Or do you think it's just fine and dandy the way it is?
|
I do agree it is ass backwards...but to expect that these US citizen children will not be turning right around and demanding to enter the US is ass backwards x2
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robbie
Also...we all realize that the 14th amendment was written to make all the freed slaves citizens (they were all born to parents who were slaves themselves and not citizens).
Using it for "anchor babies" is a legal loophole that is detrimental to the country.
Or do you think it's a great idea to allow it to continue?
|
No I do not think it is a great idea and that it should be allowed to continue unabated. But the method that Trump is proposing, to say illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the US, is even worse. If one wants to really stop this phenomenon from happening, the correct way would be to amend the Constitution to more clearly indicate that birthright citizenship does not apply to those who enter illegally. But a Constitutional amendment requires agreement by both House and Senate...PLUS 3/4 approval of every state legislature in this country. Trump knows that is highly unlikely from ever happening, that is why he is proposing this much simpler argument. |
|
|