Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

5 Bumps

A new "anchor baby" bill?

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/anchor-baby-phrase-controversial-history/story?id=11066543

"State Sen. Russell Pearce and Rep. John Kavanagh, both Republicans, intend to formally introduce the bill when the state legislature reconvenes in January. If passed, the law would directly challenge the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause, reversing a standing interpretation that grants the citizenship to all people born on U.S. soil"

(cont on link)

How do you feel about this?

 
LovingSAHMommy

Asked by LovingSAHMommy at 11:58 AM on Jul. 17, 2010 in Politics & Current Events

Level 40 (115,957 Credits)
This question is closed.
Answers (20)
  • I don't agree with it. Let the parents either put the baby up for adoption or take him back where they came from with the right to apply legally.
    Carpy

    Answer by Carpy at 12:49 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • This is such a double edge sword. People who come to this country illegally and then have several children who automatically get citizenship just so they are now "sponsored" bother me. Now, the double edge: I don't think children born to illegal immigrants should get citizenship because their parents shouldn't have been here anyway; being born in this country makes you an American citizen. So, how do you separate the "illegal and shouldn't be here" from the "natural born" part of citizenship requirements? Both sides are valid. I really want the immigration laws upheld. If you gov. can track a cow born in Canada for 3 years from birth to slaughter during the mad cow epidemic, they should be able to figure this out. (no, I'm not calling illegals cows!)
    jesse123456

    Answer by jesse123456 at 2:04 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • I think the BABY can STAY but the PARENTS need to leave :) Problem solved. The baby doesnt HAVE to stay. No one is saying THAT. So it's the parents choice! WHY do the baby's get to anchor the parents.
    momof030404

    Answer by momof030404 at 12:47 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • I disagree with the bill. A child born here is an American.

    I'm sick of these bastards trying to change the Constitution. If they actually followed the current laws, we'd be ok. Find someone here illegally, send them back. It's pretty simple.
    lovinangels

    Answer by lovinangels at 1:28 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • Hmmm well I do believe that this was actually ADDED to the constitution at some point and was not in the ORIGINAL constitution- correct? Someone please tell me if I am wrong...

    So obviously (since it has been amended) the Constitution is subjective to change, and should be- as long as it is done in the intrest of protecting citizens rights as was the intent behind adding the 14th amendment in the first place, correct? So now we have to ask ourselves, is that is what is being done with this part in the Constitution? No. What is happening is that people who are somewhat willfully breaking our laws are using this clause to circumvent immigration laws and it isn't being beneficial to America's citizens. The problem is, if you allow the babies, but deport the parents- that isn't good for those citizens EITHER.

    I see the intent behind this bill. Not for or against it yet, but something DOES need to be done about this situation
    ethans_momma06

    Answer by ethans_momma06 at 1:56 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • Seems like the people that continue to claim they love the constitution so much are always trying to change it to fit their agenda

    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 12:18 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • I don't think the anchor babies should pay for their parents idiocy. My ideas on what should happen are extremely controversial, though they would work, and not only save money, but help others as well.
    NightPhoenix

    Answer by NightPhoenix at 12:52 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • I'm sick of these bastards trying to change the Constitution. If they actually followed the current laws, we'd be ok. Find someone here illegally, send them back. It's pretty simple.

    That's the problem, though - following the law as it stands shunts all those kids into foster care when their parents are deported and everyone looks like a big meanie for taking away mommy. It's not new to have conditions on residency. I'm guessing the people screaming the loudest don't realize they already exist - children born here to visiting foreign leaders and diplomats are NOT given citizenship. There is nothing wrong with making that exception, therefore there should be nothing wrong with extending that to children of other non-legal residents. Diplomat or illegal, either way, they are not citizens. I don't see anyone protesting that diplomat babies aren't citizens.
    NotPanicking

    Answer by NotPanicking at 1:40 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • disagree with the bill. A child born here is an American.

    I'm sick of these bastards trying to change the Constitution. If they actually followed the current laws, we'd be ok. Find someone here illegally, send them back. It's pretty simple

    Agree 100%
    sweet-a-kins

    Answer by sweet-a-kins at 3:06 PM on Jul. 17, 2010

  • I read somewhere about this bill being thought about and drafted that they were thinking along the lines of the French. If you're illegal there and you have a child the child is not considered a citizen and you're both booted out the door as soon as the child is given a clean bill of health... hours after birth. I remember reading that and thinking "Now that ain't right, and why in the hell would we want to by like France at all anyway?" But maybe that's just me. LOL
    BlueCollarMama

    Answer by BlueCollarMama at 5:25 PM on Jul. 17, 2010