More than 100 kids have sued President Obama over the deportation of their parents.
The children, all born in United States, charge the deportations will cause "extreme, grave and irreparable hardship" and therefore amount to civil rights violations against them as U.S. citizens.
They're are asking the court to suspend the deportations of their parents until Congress overhauls U.S. immigration laws. The case is set to go to trial in August.
Click here to read the 51-page complaint.
Nora Sandigo, chief executive officer of Miami-based advocacy group American Fraternity, filed the suit in on behalf of the children in U.S. District Court in Miami. At a rally yesterday, Sandigo said she is frustrated that the Obama administration hasn't done more to address immigration reform, according to the Associated Press.
"Today these children's voices are not heard, but tomorrow these U.S. citizens will be voting," she said.Acting U.S. attorney Jeffrey H. Soman asked the court to dismiss the case on grounds that Sandigo didn’t properly file her case.
The suit was originally brought against the Bush administration, but was dismissed.
Alfonso Olviedo, the children's attorney, told our colleagues at the Miami Herald that the case would most likely be dismissed again, with the court citing that it is an inappropriate forum.
Even if dismissed, Sandigo said her group will continue to fight. Children at the Miami rally said their families risked losing their homes and some children are suffering psychological and physical hardship.
"My grades went from A's to C's when my mom had to leave," Ronald Soza, who is named in the suit, told the Associated Press. Ronald’s mother was deported to Nicaragua last year.
Photos: (Top) Obama File AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari, (Above) Ronald Soza, 10, left, and his sister Cecia, 12, right, at protest for the deportation of their mother. LYNNE SLADKY/AP / STF
Posts
82 comments:
Send the kids back with them..let them get their education there and teach their parents how to come to our land legally and learn our language.
wow.
someone owes me a lunch.
you people might as well start showing pictures of beaten dogs and starving cats to promote your insane agenda and to circumvent the letter of the law to support your cause.
Why aren't these kids with their parents anyway.
I would bet you folks have petitioned Websters Merriam to change the definition of illegal
too.
I am an unhappy tax payer who is being taxed without representation to support these people.
I agree 100% - send all illegals back - take some of our taxes spent on fruitless ventures, and pay their 1 way ticket home.
What kind of parents would abandon their children like this? UNFIT ONES! THE PARENTS ARE CRIMINALS AND SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THEIR ANCHOR BABIES BACK TO THEIR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN WITH THEM. Instead they choose to once again burden us with future care of their UNWANTED anchors! Unfit parents should NEVER be allowed back into our country. Let them follow the legal guidelines!!!
I am truly sorry for the children. It is not their fault that their parents committed a crime, but they will be the one's suffering the most. Unfortunately, they are being encouraged to blame the wrong people. Their parents were the one's who committed an illegal act putting them in the situation they now face.
can someone please explain to me how the offspring of illegal immigrants is a US citizen???
I am so, so tired of these sob stories the Observer continues to print about illegals and how hard their lives are now. Those who enter illegally ruin whatever community they decide to take over, I mean reside in. Just look at what they did to MY side of town, the east side. It is no secret they continue to have kids like roaches so their kids will be U.S. citizens. This law needs to be changed, and until it is, every member of these illegal families should be sent back to their home country. I am tired of subsidizing unrestricted breeding!
These children should sue their parents. Their parents caused the problem. It's that simple.
No one made their parents break the law.
No one made their parents reproduce.
These were all choices their parents consciously made. These children are citizens of the countries where their parents originated from. There is nothing stpping them from living with their parents.
Blah blah blah. Felons, illegally came to our country, sucked up our money in free rent, medical & welfare payments. Spawned kids like rabbits and took more money that way, knowing that the kids could stay here and the felon parents could probably stay as well. Send the kids back w/parents. Revoke the citizenship. Don't re-elect anyone who doesn't support this move. We need to take care of our own legal citizens before we gie to the world and illegal felon criminals.
I am going to sue Obama.
My dad broke into a warehouse and then sold the furniture on Craigslist. The police set up a sting and busted him.
Now my dad is going to be some guy's "woman" in prison.
II have lost my dad because Obama pu thim in prison. As a result my life will be changed forever. Now my life will be turned upside down, because Obama stole my dad from me.
I will sue Obama.
Make sense? No.
Obama should sue their parents for back taxes
"can someone please explain to me how the offspring of illegal immigrants is a US citizen???"
Yes, apparently you are too stupid to understand that if you are born on U.S. soil, you are automatically a citizen. A child can't control the decisions of their parents, esp. if they aren't born yet. You cannot ethically deny someone's human right to live on land where they were born.
Franco- you are like some bad joke that someone keeps telling over and over and over again.
Not only is this *another* post on *illegal* immigration, but, as usual, it's one that wriiten to make us feel sorry for all these *illegal* immigrants- by using their children.
You still not interested in writing a post on the *real* costs of *illegal* immigration?
You ever going to write something on LEGAL immigration?
Pathetic.
TWISTED TIDINGS
http://twisted-tidings.blogspot.com/
12:56 - that is another topic that is being debated. stay tuned....
make them take their kids back....tired of educating illegals and children of illegals & now some taxfree scumbags are sueing for their criminal parents....this country is turning into a joke
Agree 100%! Send the parents back to where they came from. I have nothing against people coming to America as long as it is done legally. Also, why are parents leaving the country without their children? Seriously!? Send the kids with their parents. We don't need anymore people looking for a free ride. I'm sick of paying taxes so that people can live for free!
Maybe we should sue Obama for letting undocumented immigrants stay in our country
You can't just abandon your kids - period. Other countries won't let you just leave your children! I don't care if you are a kid born on American soil - you aren't officially a 'citizen' (by definition) until you can vote. Sorry. Take your kids back and they can return once they're grown!
A point to ponder...what if...these unemancipated minors who are indeed US citizens were sent with their parents...most countries would not want them with their parents who belong there...curious how and why we find ourselves in this position as Americans but other countries do not...just a thought
This website has become nothing but a portal for right wing hate speech. It's getting really annoying.
So what happens when you sue the President of The United States of America? Are all the LEGAL citizens now the defendant since he's the one that represents the LEGAL citizens of this country? How about I sue each and every ILLEGAL ALIEN for the hardships THEY are causing me and my fellow LEGAL citizens? You know like education, health care, etc...
And I'm starting with you Franco!
F.O., Why don't you ever respond to some of the racist comments about the blogs you write? Did you cover the story about the murder in Arizona by a lady from an offshoot of the Minutemen group? They were going to rob a suspected drug dealer to fund their cause. He's a criminal and they were to, yet they felt like they had the right to rob him and ended up killing him and his 9 year old daughter before the wife shot one of them. The got arrested when the fool that was shot went to the hospital. My husband is from the Caribbean and has spent much time and money to come here legally. Yet I'm not stupid enough to think that all people that are here undocumented can or should be deported. Some of these people commenting on your blog have no skin in the game and are just racist for the most part. One of the posters is talking about "roaches" and "anchor babies", these comments should be deleted, or maybe not so people can see what is really out there.
ship the brats back with their parents
'Whatsoever you do to the least of these, so also you do unto me' Jesus Christ
if we send the anchor babies back, to were they come from, lets star it with the sons and daughters of the may flower, se yaa
The articles below are just the tip of the iceberg. It's past time to do the right thing, and the right thing is to enforce the laws of this country. Enforce our laws and protect our borders. If they can't get in, they can't have their babies here. Mexico has hospitals, go there instead.
The Immigrant Gang Plague
TWO LIVES, ONE SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
HIDDEN COST OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: ID THEFT
Her ATM card, illegal immigrant's face
The secret list of ID theft victims
TWISTED TIDINGS
http://twisted-tidings.blogspot.com/
"This website has become nothing but a portal for right wing hate speech. It's getting really annoying."
as soon as left starts acting without self interest, and in the interest of this and FUTURE generations with some of fiscal and political common sense that will no longer be an issue
will it?
Truly theater of the absurd. The anchor babies, citizens only because of a misinterpretation of the Constitution by an activist judge, now suing to stop the due deportation of their parents who are finally after much cost and effort receiving their due punishement.
Great post from the guy that so brilliantly equated children of other criminals suffering just as much (and probably more) than the children of illegals. On top of that the children of other criminals can't join their parent in jail -- the children of illegals can (and should) join their parents in the homeland to which they SHOULD return.
"Whatsoever you do to the least of these, so also you do unto me' Jesus Christ"
Another morality lesson from the religious left. We are returning them to where they belong -- what is so outrageous about that? They're not suffering in jail or being tortured -- they're simply being returned to where they are supposed to be living. They don't have to split up the family either -- take them along!!! They belong there anyway!
First, the Observer does this on purpose. They love the controversy surrounding a diverse view meant to make those that are opposed look racist and backwards.
Second, the world in general is pushing for a socialist agenda the burden of which will be borne by the middle class as they lose while the poor gain. We are all being pushed into the same poor man's corral while the elite and rich will be left to stand on the outside to enjoy more of the dwindling resources resulting from less competition from the middle class.
Third, things will not get better until we, the middle class, fight back using methods other than blogs. We had better learn to come together before the gov begins to destroy our ability to do so. The governments are increasingly wary of such things as the internet and Twitter as it allows for mass communicaion resulting in the ability to plan and organize. They will find a way to shut it down.
Jesus doesn't love terrorists.
2:25 - It's called a revolution. They say history repeats itself...
The entire argument is ridiculous. How is the argument that deporting their parents causing citizen babies undue hardship any different than American children whose parents have committed any number of crimes and are then sent to prison for an extended period of time thereby "leaving their children"? It isn't! The premise is absurd. "Our parents committed a crime and you made them suffer consequences, and now we want retribution" Seriously?!?
i have mixed feelings about this. the children are suffering because of what their parents did illegally. a part of me says send them back, but the other says let them stay. when you adopt from another country you have to have proper paper work and even then it takes awhile before you become a citizen. i feel that if the children are being left behind should be a warden of the country and go to foster homes and try to be adopted out.just because you are born here, you are a citizen? so does that mean, if their parents are here on vacation temporarily and just HAPPEN to go in labor, the kids are citizens? what would happen then? it is really not the childrens fault, but they should try to sue the president because of them trying to uphold the law. i really think its just adults trying to get money or to say...hey guess what I sued the president.. I don't really care for obama personally, but i dont think he is at fault here. another thought, if i was the parents, i wouldn't leave my kids behind.if i leave,my kids would go with me...im sure they want a better life for them, but hey lets do things legally. you would expect it from us.
"This website has become nothing but a portal for right wing hate speech. It's getting really annoying."
I'd much rather have right-wing "hate speech" than left-wing stupidity. What's that old saying?: "If you're under 30 and you're a conservative, you have no heart. But if you're over 30 and you're a liberal, then you have no brain."
The laws need to be changed so that citizenship is something you INHERIT from your parents. If they're illegal, so are you; if they're resident aliens, so are you. If they're citizens, so are you. Enough of this "you're a citizen just because you were born here" nonsense. Nicole Kidman was born in the US, but she's not a US citizen -- and neither should these anchor kids be.
These children of illegal immigrants is a real conundrum, because this must be measured that the parents broke the law of a sovereign country? This law that allows foreign national women to slip through the undermanned national border and by having a child here gives instant citizenship. The truth is that instant citizenship was absolutely meant for the emancipation of slaves once freed after the civil war. Like so many of our laws that have been corrupted by judges interpreting the U.S. constitution for their own extremism. Now these illegal mothers knew full well they were violating US laws, and were still rewarded with many citizen benefits, including housing, education, health care for the child and federal and state mandatory benefits. As at this time new legislation has been drafted, to rescind this wrongly applied law so this error that causes the children of illegal immigrants, immersed in this unresolvable spot. can never happen again.
Rep. Nathan Deal (R-GA) reintroduced his Birthright Citizenship bill that would eliminate automatic citizenship for children born in the United States. Under the proposed legislation, a person born in the United States, in order to gain citizenship, must have at least one parent who is: a U.S. citizen or national; a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or an alien performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces. To get this law passed--THE PEOPLE--must demand of their Senators and representatives to sponsor this law. Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009 (H.R.1868) has 40 legislative sponsors, but needs your attention to this matter. Entering the United States under current law, cost taxpayers millions of dollars to support the birth mother in prenatal care and delivery, whereas American have to pay. Read more about this major issue at NUMBERSUSA, that must be resolved.
It's a child, not a choice.
What would Steve Earle do?
Florida, Texas, New Mexico, California, Los Angeles, San Antonio, etc.
That ain't English.
a part of me says send them back, but the other says let them stay.
- That's already the way it works. The children are citizens. Minors will be wards of the stae if they have no guardian. Or they cans go wit their parents. The children have options if they are citizens.
I can't help but laugh when I read a response that claims it is the "religious left" that is making some of these statements. I thought just all you right wingers were the holy ones. Get your story straight.
just because you are born here, you are a citizen?
- Yes
so does that mean, if their parents are here on vacation temporarily and just HAPPEN to go in labor, the kids are citizens?
- Yes
"These children of illegal immigrants is a real conundrum, because this must be measured that the parents broke the law of a sovereign country?"
--> No it doesn't need to be measured. If the parents broke the law the parents must pay the consequences. you cannot penalize a child for the choices or actions of their parents. If you are born on U.S. soil, you are a citizen. The land where you are birthed is your moral right to live and no one has the moral authority to remove you or deny you the ability to survive. The minute you are born here you are a citizen and your rights are protected regardless of the circumstances of those who birthed you.
"This law that allows foreign national women to slip through the undermanned national border and by having a child here gives instant citizenship."
--> That is not true the mother nor the father will become citizens by having a child. Any child born on U.S. soil is a citizen
The truth is that instant citizenship was absolutely meant for the emancipation of slaves once freed after the civil war.
--> not true
"Like so many of our laws that have been corrupted by judges interpreting the U.S. constitution for their own extremism."
The judges are not extremists you are. you are the one trying to deny those born here citizenship by default.
Nicole Kidman was born in the US, but she's not a US citizen. She is unless she legally renounced her citizenship
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Check out my blog:
www.politicalramblingsofamadman.com
"Now these illegal mothers knew full well they were violating US laws, and were still rewarded with many citizen benefits, including housing, education, health care for the child and federal and state mandatory benefits."
These illegal mothers didn't just KNOW FULL WELL, they were INCENTIVIZED by this knowledge -- that's why their copiously produced offspring are called anchor babies. The babies essentially anchor the illegals to this country and create multiple legal challenges in our crazy judicial system by which they can resist deportation.
The illegals are well schooled on how to use our laws and freedoms to aide in their life of crime -- you can thank many of the organizations that are proudly listed on this blog for disseminating this information to the illegals.
"Enough of this "you're a citizen just because you were born here" nonsense."
"The laws need to be changed so that citizenship is something you INHERIT from your parents."
...just listen to yourself. Can we require a certain score on an IQ test to be a citezen too??? LMAO
"The babies essentially anchor the illegals to this country and create multiple legal challenges in our crazy judicial system by which they can resist deportation."
3:21 Anonymous
Obviously not. That's what the article is about.
2:41- One question in regards to your suggestion. My mother is Puerto Rican- which makes her a U.S. citizen and my father is Colombian but was a Resident Alien when I was born in New York. Under your suggestion, what would that make me? My husband is a resident alien, proudly served in the Marine Corps and I was born here, so, what would that make my son and daughter? To the rest of people commenting, everyone seems to think that these illegal immigrants have "abandoned" their children. All of these people facing deportation are sitting in a jail in Atlanta waiting to be deported. They are not hanging out at some office or halfway house, they are in jail. Keep that in mind when you call them "anchor babies, roaches and scumbags". Thank you.
"...just listen to yourself. Can we require a certain score on an IQ test to be a citezen too??? LMAO"
Dude get a grip. The key phrase is, "and subject to the jurisdiction of". Only an activist judge or lib such as yourself could totally ignore this phrase and decree that anyone born here is somehow a citizen.
If the intent was for anyone born here to be a citizen then why did they even bother to include the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction of"?
"Obviously not. That's what the article is about."
Obviously so. The key word is RESIST. Anchor babies don't make it impossible to deport the parents, it just makes it more difficult. It allows libs such as yourself to try and play the whole "seperate families" line of sorrow. Sorry if I don't cry for the supposed breakup of families when they have no one to blame for themselves -- and they don't have to be seperated anyway if they would just take their anchor babies back to where they belong anyway.
"To the rest of people commenting, everyone seems to think that these illegal immigrants have "abandoned" their children. All of these people facing deportation are sitting in a jail in Atlanta waiting to be deported. They are not hanging out at some office or halfway house, they are in jail."
When they are finally deported they can take their children with them. If they choose not to (and many do) then they have abandoned their children. There's simply no other way around it.
Awaiting deportation in a jail is a brief temporary situation.
Do you mind giving a context to
"If the intent was for anyone born here to be a citizen then why did they even bother to include the phrase, "and subject to the jurisdiction of"?"
Deport the anchor baby kids to. They should never have been allowed to stay here. In CMS millions are spent each year to educate these illegals. If taxpayers knew how much illegal kids cost them they would be up in arms. School taxes could be cut 10% if we got rid of them.
I have no sympathy for them.
I don't believe the law denies citizenship by birth to anyone born on U.S. soil. If the law actually denies those born on U.S. soil the right to citizenship by birth, then I say we change the law.
As a lifelong pursuer of a balanced scale of justice, I believe that one can never be punished for sins of a father. The result of "anchor babies" is outweighed by the protection of the interests and human rights of everyone within our borders. Those members of the human race that are born within our borders should expect to be citizens, who's interests and well-being should be protected by our government. Period
Context? Okay...
Well here is the relevant items from the 14th amendment...
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
If the intent was simply that anyone born here should be a citizen then why include the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?
3:33 PM -- If one of your parents is a US citizen, as in your case, then you are a US citizen. And since YOU are a US citizen, your son and daughter would also be US citizens. Basically, each person born in this country would inherit the greater status of their two parents. So:
FC + FC = FC
FC + RA = FC
FC + IA = FC
RA + RA = RA
RA + IA = RA
IA + IA = IA
where FC is Full Citizen, RA is Resident Alien, and IA is Illegal Alien.
So, a full US citizen could have a child with an illegal alien, and the child would be a full citizen. The illegal alien, of course, would be subject to deportation at any time if they did not follow legal channels to become a resident alien or a full citizen. Any child born to two illegal aliens would ALSO be an illegal alien and subject to deportation along with their parents.
I believe this scheme is eminently fair and logical and impossible to poke holes in, unless you are one of those people (like Franco) who just don't give a **** about the law.
"I believe that one can never be punished for sins of a father."
Punished?!? How is a child punished when they are given citizenship to the country of origin of their parents rather than the United States. Is a child born in Mexico punished because they are not given citizenship in the United States?
No other country awards citizenship to anyone born in their country regardless of the status of their parents. It's suicidal in a modern welfare state such as the United States where activist judges have mandated a whole host of entitlements from the taxpayers.
Deport the anchor baby kids to. They should never have been allowed to stay here.
- Are you on crack? What do you mean they should have never been allowed to stay here. They were born here. They are citizens
In CMS millions are spent each year to educate these illegals.
- You are lying they are not here illegally. They were born here and they are citizens
If taxpayers knew how much illegal kids cost them they would be up in arms.
- well there is a difference between a minor and an adult & there is a difference between an undocumented immigrant and a U.S. citizen. The population of children you descibed above are not here illegally. They are born in theU.S. and they are legal citizens. Whatever it costs to educate our children who are citizens is what it costs. If it's all about saving money we could cut public school altogether. I'm not sure the result would be very good though.
School taxes could be cut 10% if we got rid of them.
I have no sympathy for them.
Any child born to two illegal aliens would ALSO be an illegal alien and subject to deportation along with their parents.
I believe this scheme is eminently fair and logical and impossible to poke holes in, unless you are one of those people (like Franco) who just don't give a **** about the law.
Well I give a *** about the law. First of all the law currently does not use the criteria you have suggested. And I support that law and I disagree with you. I clearly respect the law, because I agree with the law. You have suggested that we CHANGE THE LAW. Any claim you make that anyone who disagrees with your proposal has no respect for the law is ridiculous. What you are proposing is not the law, just a suggestion. It is simple to poke holes in your proposal. There are human rights to consider. Now the law might allow one human to own another human and that had to be changed. The law violated basic human rights. Similarly, denying a person the right to live where they are born is unnaccetable. It doesn't matter what crime their parents committed. Every human deserves a clean slate when they are born. Every person born in this country deserves the same basic opportunities as any other person. The law shouldn't offer one child protection and not another because of their parents choices or place in life.
"The population of children you descibed above are not here illegally."
Not completely true. Some indeed are illegals (or as you euphemistaclly call them "undocumented immigrants") -- they were born in other countries and brought here by their illegal parents.
The rest are "legal" only because an activist judge misinterpreted the 14th amendment to advance his agenda rather than strictly interpret the Constitution. So we all suffer because of badly interpreted law.
Both cost us a lot of money. At the very least we shouldn't be paying for the illegals born in other countries.
anonymnous at 4:29 and others...
Are you ever going to address the
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?
Just because it's the law, doesn't mean it is right. Anchor babies are indeed legal, but they shouldn't be if interpreted accurately.
Not completely true. Some indeed are illegals (or as you euphemistaclly call them "undocumented immigrants") -- they were born in other countries and brought here by their illegal parents.
- yes i call them undocumented immigrants because humans aren't t "illegal" and should not be referred to in that way. Furthermore immigration is a civil issue not a criminal issue.
And no "anchor babies" as you referred to thm are never here illegally. They are all born in the U.S. and they are all citizens.
The term "anchor baby" is used to describe an undocumented immigrant who has a child on U.S. soil for the sole purpose of creating a citizen and reducing the likelyhood of being deported due to the government's avoidance of breaking up families. An undocumented immigrant who's child is born in their nation of origin, would not be the parent of an "anchor baby" and the child would have no legal claim to live here or claim to citizenship in the U.S.
Some "activist judge may have misinterpreted the 1th ammendement" but the law is the law and as it stands these children born in the U.S. are u.S. citizens.
Unlike you these so called activist judges can control their emotions and not use derrogatory terms when discussing or deciding on difficult policy. And that's why they decide the policy and not people like you who cant evaluate and put the order of law in perspective
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?
--> are you ever going to put it in or use it in context...
The law is the law. Perspective and empathy don't enter into it.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
--> So basically if you are born here you are a citizen
"The term "anchor baby" is used to describe an undocumented immigrant who has a child on U.S. soil for the sole purpose of creating a citizen and reducing the likelyhood of being deported due to the government's avoidance of breaking up families."
Using your definition, and actually it is a good one other than the euphamistic "undocumented immigrant" part, I just don't see how this is derogatory.
Oh well, I suppose that the conversation is becoming tired at this point. Fortunately your open borders point of view is one clearly in the minority.
Okay, I'll try one last time...
Why is the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" included in the language. Why do you and other libs ignore this phrase?
Again, if someone born here regardless of the status of their parents automatically had citizenship status then this phrase would be completely unncessary. Why is it there?
"Fortunately your open borders point of view is one clearly in the minority."
- No sorry I don't believe in open borders at all. I think undocumented immigrants should be sent to their countries of origin. That would include children. U.S. citizens that are born in the U.S are not immigrants, have no country to go 'home' to other than the U.S.. "Anchor Babies" respectfully and appropriately refered to as U.S. born U.S. citizens are not fodder for your political opinions and I would assume that since the majoruity of eleced leaders do not implement polices you are sympathetic to that you are the minority...
Okay, I'll try one last time...
Why is the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" included in the language. Why do you and other libs ignore this phrase?
---------
Okay, I'll try this one last time, as I interpret it it means those born in the U.S or are naturalized are subject to its laws. It makes no reference to who is and isn't within that jurisdiction or the geographic boundaries or legal boundaries. it's ambiguous.
So again my question is why is this important in this discussion. Please put it context. in other words, explain it's signifigance as it pertains to children born in the U.S. as opposed to another child born int he U.S.
An interpretation of what many of this board are thinking..."Things were better when white protestants ruled the country and everyone else 'knew their place'. It was especially great here in the deep south when we kept those that didn't look like on one side of town. Now, white protestants are becoming a minority and we don't like others who don't speak our language, especially with without a southern accent. So I will take it out on their kids since they are a 'lesser human' than me, and if the rest of the community doesn't follow suit soon, I'll just go out and shoot some people just to make my point." Come on admit it, that is that many of you are really trying to say.
Hey, ask to see BO's birth certificqte too.
Anonymous said...
Hey, ask to see BO's birth certificqte too.
June 18, 2009 10:53 PM
Lets see yours! Anyone who thinks a non citizen without a legal birth certificate can be President is stupid or brainwashed by Fox tv. He's been investigated and thoroughly vetted. This is a non issue that I don't blame him for ignoring.
I feel sorry for the children however, their parents should never have put them in this position to begin with. Until they are 18 years of age they should have to return with their parents. Then at the age of consent they can return to America...the children...Legally. It's a hard world and no one ever said it would be fair.
America is over, and has been for some time. That great country you believed in in elementary school is gone. Get over it.
This is absolutely absurb! How about if the American people file a law suit against OBAMA, BUSH, CLINTON, BUSH and others for NOT PROTECTING OUR BORDERS AND ENFORCING CURRENT IMMIGRATION LAW!
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
No one has mentioned that the word "and" is used and not "or" subject to the jurisdiction....That means that both things have to be true, not just one.
There are instances where political individuals (embassies and whatnot) are in the U.S. and have children. Some of the offices, homes or apartments of these families are given different definitions of jurisdiction.
We've all seen one tv show or another that mentions "diplomatic immunity". That is when they are not subject to our jurisdiction. (The embassies of foreign countries are governed by the law of their country...not ours. Just like our embassies are governed by U.S. laws in other countries.)
My brother-in-law was born in Japan because his father was stationed there while serving the U.S. military. He carried a dual citizenship until he was 18. At that time, he had a decision to make. He chose the U.S.
Unfortunately, the children of these people facing deportation should stay with their folks and make the same decision when they turn 18. And should be allowed to return to the U.S. on their own without facing public ridicule.
My feelings are that these children were blessed to be born here. Just as I was. But cursed because their parents weren't willing to follow the rules of society. They have a social security number and that will benefit them when they are no longer minors.
@Anonymous said...
"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"?
--> are you ever going to put it in or use it in context...
The writers of this particular clause of the fourteenth amendment, US Senators Jacob Howard and Lyman Trubmull, stated:
The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means ‘subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.’ What do we mean by ‘complete jurisdiction thereof?’ Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.
You can read the minutes of the Congressional record taken from the day of debate here:
Congressional Minutes from the national record, 39th Congress, 1st Session,
This was added to help solidify and concretize the relationship of "state citizenship" vis-a-vis "U.S. (federal) citizenship. Additionally, its inclusion was meant to assuage the concerns of various parties regarding the citizenship rights of Native Americans. The Fourteenth Amendment continued to affirm legislation that denied citizenship rights to Native Americans.
Furthermore, despite claimed "actions of a few liberal activist judges" who interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, in reality, the Supreme Court (the ultimate arbiter of Constitutional interpretation), made several rulings on this very matter concerning foreigners, illegals, etc. and the citizenship birthright of their offspring.
In 1898 SCOTUS ruled in United States v Wong Kim Ark, that children of non-citizen Chinese, born on U.S. soil, were indeed citizens.
Congress' intent in including the qualifying phrase ''and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,'' was apparently to exclude from the reach of the language children born of diplomatic representatives of a foreign state and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, both recognized exceptions to the common-law rule of acquired citizenship by birth, as well as children of members of Indian tribes subject to tribal laws. Citation and notes here
They are suing the wrong person. Sue the parents who broke the law and left their kids to fend for themselves.
so stop hiring illegals than...isn't that what america needs?someone to do their dirty work no one else wants to do, for less than minimum wage, and no health benefits?stop complaining that there are no jobs, blaming the latinos, and get your info straight...illegals can't get welfare or any other government assistance...not even file taxes...duh
fuck everyone who commented, jesus christ you, let's just murder all the immigrants why don't we. i bet you'd love that idea you fucks.
Post a Comment