New Stanek poll: Should “anchor babies” be given automatic citizenship?
My weekend question earlier this month was, “Do you think the 14th Amendment should be repealed?,” and now I’m asking it in the form of a new poll question:
Do you think “anchor babies,” or babies born in the US to illegal aliens, should be granted automatic citizenship?
Vote on the lower right side of the home page.
My previous poll question was just for fun. Here were the results:
Click on the map to enlarge to find your own brightly colored flag….
As always, make comments to either the previous or current poll here, not on the Vizu website.
Sep.11, 2010 8:51 am |
Polls, Population |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Immigration laws aside, I stronly dislike the term “anchor baby” because it is used to stereotype, discriminate, and oppress certain groups of individuals, based on their nationality rather than their individual rights, much like the term negro (and worse) was used to against individuals of African American heritage back in the 1960’s.
No, I believe we should uphold the 14th amendment. Discrimination against illegal immigrants is appalling. We cannot possibly call ourselves pro-life if we treat ANYONE with hatred and discrimination.
No, they should not be granted automatic citizenship.
Next question.
The constitution says they are natural born citizens.
But the birth mother who is in the country illegally is not.
As soon as she healthy enough to travel deport her to the country of her birth and/or citizenship, whichever is closer. My guess is she will choose to take her child with her and we won’t have to deal with her or her child for at least another 18 years, assuming we have discovered the will and the way to secure our borders and enforce our existing immigration laws.
MaryLee September 11th, 2010 at 10:24 am
“Discrimination against illegal immigrants is appalling. We cannot possibly call ourselves pro-life if we treat ANYONE with hatred and discrimination.”
============================================================
Enforcing existing immigration laws indiscriminatley is not hatred or even discrimination.
Not enforcing existing immigration laws discriminates against all the people who have or will attempt to immigrate to the United States legally.
My wife is one of those people who has immigrated legally.
Please explain to her why people from the countries south of the southern border should receive preferential treatment compared to the people who are from the country north of the northern border.
Yay! Great question! I voted yes for many reasons. First, as a mom of four, I remember the wonderful feeling of knowing my kids were automatically American citizens just by virtue of their birth in this great country. That sense of blessedness is profound enough to defy description. I would not deny this to any other mother.
Second, my niece has dual citizenship because she was born in Germany to American military parents. She doesn’t cause any problems for Germany so I know that citizenship, in and of itself, is NOT a problem.
Third, birthright citizenship is a reflection of our value for human dignity. We should be embracing new citizens as a rule and working for justice when anyone, citizen or non-citizen, breaks the law.
Thanks again for asking this question, Jill. Many blessings!!!
For Life,
Lisa
To be quite honest, I am appalled that changing the 14th amendment is even a proposition. A person is not not truly pro-life if he/she is not pro-family. If they are not pro-family, then it’s all just words. Wanting to change the 14th amendment is an attempt to marginalize children that are no different from “legal” children in America is an attempt to harm innocent children for choices made by their parents. How is that different from abortion? If a person hates them enough to force them into illegal status, how far is that person from wanting them to be aborted?
I’m surprised at some of the responses.
There are thousands of countries in the world and no ONE country can possibly give a job to each person who wants one. Why should the USA be a catch all? It’s ironic that many of the same people who claim the earth isn’t big enough to sustain a growing population have no problem with unregulated immigration into the U.S.. Whether or not babies receive automatic citizenship is not a human rights issue. Ed, I don’t see this as a love/hate relationship between Americans and illegal aliens. Playing the race card won’t further the argument.
Economics has to be considered here. Wasn’t the 14th amendment actually the result of wanting to make sure citizenship was granted to all blacks in the U.S after the abolition of slavery? I don’t think (correct me if I’m wrong) it was about filling our borders to the brim with everyone and anyone who wanted to come from around the world.
* * *
yor bro ken,
I agree with you although I think that currently some mothers would voluntarily leave their children with relatives in the U.S. rather than take them to their home country (Mexico, or wherever) if they themselves are deported. The children should/need to follow their mothers back to their homelands.
Janet, 1) there are not “thousands” of countries in the world. There are 196. 192 in the UN.
2) I don’t think anyone has suggested that the U.S. should give a job to everyone on Earth who wants one.
3) Many environmentalist do, in fact, have a problem with illegal immigration. I think the Sierra Club made statement about that a few years back, and caused a bit of controversy.
4) Immigration doesn’t increase the population of the Earth, only of the U.S. It decreases the population of the countries that are emigrated from.
5) I think the babies born here would view their US Citizenship as a “human rights issue.” Denying citizenship as guaranteed by our Constitution because of the status of the parents seems “wrong” somehow.
6) I think the people who argue that “killing our next generation through abortion is going to have adverse impact on our aging population (less earners relative to retirees)” should appreciate the influx of more young people to our country.
7) I see no evidence that we’re “filling our boarders to the brim.” We’re still one of the less densly populated nations.
Our country has more resources, more opportunities, and more ROOM than any other country on the planet. If a baby is born in America, then he or she should be granted automatic citizenship. Why is this a question at all?
Hatred against illegal immigrants confounds me. We need to help them, not punish them. We can sit here and debate about how they should all speak English, or do it the “right” way, but we’re here at our computers in our homes, with our jobs, and our cars. They’re trying to escape a life of destitution and despair. But we hate them because they’re, what? Not white? Not like us? Give me a break. We have more than enough resources to help them.
MaryLee…. if we don’t stop illegal immigration then we don’t know WHO is in our country. It not only allows a flow of decent people trying to make a new life… it allows a flow of drug cartels, violence, kidnapping and even terrorists (there is a lot of available information about how the terrorists from the Middle East use the Mexican crossings as a way to sneak into our country.)
It has nothing to do with skin color or ethnicity… it has to do with the fact that we are the only country on earth that allows flagrant violations of our borders. Come to America… absolutely! Just come legally.
I completely agree with helping immigrants. If we are truly pro-life then we are pro-family… How is destroying families pro-family? These are hard working, and good people! None of us are innocent of breaking laws. If they broke a law to protect and make a better life for their families through hard work and sweat, then surely there are worse crimes. They don’t deserve to be dehumanized or put down with words like ‘illegal alien’, ‘illegal’ etc. We are all people and when it comes down to it, we are all human. We are knit in our mother’s womb by God. We are born into this world the same way, the circumstances in which we are born or our nationality do not excuse punishment or degradation of our person.
But they are called illegal aliens for a reason. Call them whatever you would like but they are in our country illegally, right??
I would hope that they want to become American citizens by following our laws to do just that. So………..why aren’t they?
Man, I gotta go to bed….I agree about 100% with Ed on this one…something is wrong with me! :-)
Anyone here live in a gated community? Or knows someone who does?
I used to babysit in a gated community… when my dad retired from the police department he founded a very successful private security company and one of the places he managed was a giant gated community on the Arizona Biltmore. I babysat for many of the people who lived there. Good paying babysitting gigs!
Now that we’re up here… heck, people not only don’t even lock things, they leave their keys in their cars! We had a problem with one of our lighting fixtures…. didn’t even realize the landlord had come to fix it until we saw the note he left (since we don’t lock the doors… no one does up here.) When we first moved in the landlord said we could use his phone while we got our stuff set up… “Just come on in the back door, the phone is on the back wall.” The local mechanic gets deliveries of auto parts dropped off in front of the shop on Saturday mornings most weeks…. and they just sit there in front until he opens Monday morning. Nobody touches them.
Babies are not illegal just because their parents are. just as we cannot judge a child worthy of life itself based on the intention of his/her parents, so we cannot judge the child worthy of a particular status based on the intention of his/her parents. What if you were visiting family and went into earlier than expected labor? Your child is powerless and innocent; all children should be judged alike. The parents, well that’s another story.
There’s a reason for gated communities: security.
Just like there’s a check-in/security desk in the main lobby of my diocesan office. Or at high end business towers. That’s why there’s locks on people’s doors.
Folks have a right to know who is approaching their doors and their intentions.
If someone who has illegally entered this country, knowing full well that all she needs to do is pop her baby here and it’s a done deal, then we’re looking at an egregious case of taking advantage of the system.
BTW, “illegal” is not a put down. It’s completely and totally accurate. The laws were passed for those wishing to become a citizen of this country that they do so via a particular process. As for the process itself, no doubt there needs to be reform, but that’s another topic entirely.
If that person refuses to abide by those laws, then we’re looking at unlawful activity. Hence, illegal.
I’d make it much hard to cross the boarder illegally and much easier to cross the boarder legally. The wink we’re giving illegal immigrants (“come on over if you can make it”) is heartless and inhumane. It’s corrupt and dangerous, and should be stopped with forceful measures.
Absolutely, Hal! Although I would hasten to point out that of all of the countries that I have looked at in terms of the process to legally enter the country, the U.S. has one of the easiest. Work visas can be gotten simply by having a company apply stating that you will be working for them (so as to assure that people aren’t coming simply to use welfare) and the time frame for your employment. And we don’t have the huge restrictions that other countries have, such as say, Australia or the U.K., in terms of people who want to settle her as permanent legal aliens. If we wanted to move to Australia, we probably could, but that is only because I have a license as a registered nurse. It’s very eye opening to go to the websites of different countries and see their requirements.
My husband is a legal resident alien. He knows his alien registration number by heart and we have multiple photocopies in our file system of his alien registration card in case we need to hand one over to someone. Why? Because that is the law. It’s not the law for just some people, it’s the law for all resident legal aliens.
I do agree that the “wink and nod” is not acceptable. We all keep talking, however, about the good hearted people just trying to give their kids a decent shot at a better life. (I get that, really I do.) What about, however, the people who don’t have such innocent motives? The drug cartels that have put a bounty on the head of Pima County Sheriff Paul Babeau? The violent criminals? The would-be terrorists?
Please delete this. I edited and came up with a duplicate post. Sorry.
Elisabeth,
Please, for your own sake, don’t give anyone online specifics about where you live, since you’ve mentioned that your neighbors don’t lock their doors or their cars. Yikes. I’d hate to see you being the victim of a crime.
Hal,
O.K., so there are a hundred plus countries…not thousands. Perdoname – for the hyperbole. My point was that the U.S.A is one of the most desirable places in the world where people can come and achieve their dreams because of the freedoms afforded its citizens – everyone that wants to live here simply cannot.
Janet, not to worry. First of all, do you have any idea how much strangers stand out in a town this small? In addition…. rather than locks, people have their guns. Everyone up here hunts and has multiple weapons on hand at any given time. And are excellent shots…. and I can guarantee you, law enforcement up here doesn’t have the same hangups as in the big city…. if someone is trespassing on our property and intends to cause harm and they get a bullet in the leg …. our police officer is going to come down on the trespasser…. not the law abiding citizen using their second amendment rights.
Elisabeth,
I kind of chuckled after you mentioned guns. You seem like such a peace-loving person. I’m not making any political statement for or against gun rights, just saying… :)
Break-ins can happen at night when everyone’s asleep. That would be my concern for you.
First of all the term “anchor baby” is not only demeaning to the child him/herself, but it isn’t an accurate term. Yes, the child will be a US citizen automatically as he or she should for the mere fact that he or she has been born (via whatever circumstance) in the US. Now… the parents are not automatically granted citizenship. Let’s get that straight… that is a very common misconception. Calling someone or a group of people (whatever their nationality) “illegals” is offensive. They are people, with names, lives, families, friends etc. Illegal is a status not a label to put on someone. Just like we wouldn’t call legal people “legals”. We are all humans. If the immigration process was like it was back when Ellis Island was open, of course every immigrant that is here illegally would go through it. It was so simple back then. The fact of the matter is that it is not as simple as many of you think. I am from Mexico City and I am personally going through this process and it is not only incredibly expensive, but it is lengthy and tedious as you cannot imagine. Not everyone can be blessed to go through this. I count my blessings that I can and I can only feel terrible for those who are not able to. Don’t judge them, be happy you aren’t going through what so many are. This isn’t easy. I think that the people who have committed crimes (especially violent crimes) should be held accountable for it, definitely do background checks, etc. We need a comprehensible reform that helps the good people who are here, working hard to earn a living and support their families. Immigrants pay taxes through their jobs, (which by the way they won’t see a cent of when they retire, so they are actually giving money away to the economy), they pay taxes when purchasing anything, etc. Another misconception is that they are here for welfare… you must be a US citizen to even apply for it, so that isn’t true, they are not here to ‘steal’ anything. Again, count your blessings that you aren’t in a situation like that… and if we are truly pro-family and pro-life… (I am Catholic) and I assume many of you are Christian too? Why not help the needy instead of judging and making things more complicated for them? Also, please educate yourself before stating inaccuracies, insulting words and remarks.
I can’t believe this, Hal. I’m actually agreeing with you!
Cecilia, you’re rambling.
For one, I understand full and well the parents of “anchor babies” do not automatically become citizens. That’s not what the argument is about.
I say illegals because I’m referring to their status, which you confirmed just now. Just like I’ll say drunk drivers, felons, arsonists, or any other status rightfully given to individuals who break the law. Individuals who, as you say, are humans, with names, lives, families, friends etc. It does not change the fact as to the nature of their offense.
And I know the citizenship process is not simple. Re-read my earlier post, will you?
If the immigration process was like it was back when Ellis Island was open, of course every immigrant that is here illegally would go through it. It was so simple back then.
Incorrect. For starters, not every illegal immigrant here today should be here. Criminals and such have no right, so do be specific.
Deportation was not uncommon at Ellis Island. Immigrants were sent back home due to health reasons, even some unskilled workers were denied entry if it was felt they would “likely be a public charge.” If the sick ones weren’t deported, they would be placed in the hospital facilities for a time. A good 3,ooo died waiting in those facilities. So simple back then…
There is at least one public assistance program here in Florida that does not require U.S. citizenship: WIC.
Straight from their website:
Bring ONE proof of where you live (no P.O. boxes). The document must be current and show your name and address. Items that are allowed include a utility bill, bank/insurance statement, or driver’s license. You must be currently living in Florida, but you don’t have to be a U.S. citizen.
******
AS someone who has spent plenty of time in WIC offices, I can assure you that there are plenty of non-US citizens waiting for their WIC checks every month.
I can see why this hits home for you, Cecilia. Do I want to see Immigration Reform? Yes. Would I want that to include General Amnesty? No.
I like the idea that a friend of mine running for congress had: Those families who are here illegally but are already established should be required to have a member of the family sign up for military service. Not a bad idea, that.
Don’t confuse helping the needy with enabling unlawful behavior.
Well, since we’re referring to a rather large group of people who happen to have one thing in common… they are not citizens of the U.S. and they are not legally present in the U.S., I think using names might be a bit cumbersome…. having to type out hundreds of thousands of names every single time we wish to refer to the group might slow down the servers inordinately….
Ex-GOP Voter September 11th, 2010 at 10:15 pm
Man, I gotta go to bed….I agree about 100% with Ed on this one…something is
wrong with me!
===========================================================
Ex-RINO,
I agree with you, there is something wrong with you.
===========================================================
Ed September 11th, 2010, 4:40pm
Wanting to change the 14th amendment is an attempt to marginalize children that are no different from “legal” children in America is an attempt to harm innocent children for choices made by their parents.
How is that different from abortion? If a person hates them enough to force them into illegal status, how far is that person from wanting them to be aborted?wrong with me!
===========================================================
Ed,
When I read that Ex-RINO had agreed with you I sensed there must be a great disturbance in the force.
I agree with you on this point:
I don’t want the 14th ammendment to be modified in a misquided attempt to address the issue of illegal imigration.
And I particularly don’t want this current crew of misguided congressmen to lay their soiled hands on the constitution.
The precipitator in this discussion is not the imigration laws or the people who are tasked with enforcing them.
The precipitator is the person who knowingly and willfully chooses to violate our sovereignty and imigration law by entering and/or remaining here illegally.
If the precipitator is a pregnant woman, then she alone is responsible for putting her prenatal child in harms way.
Our imigration laws are not the equivalent of the Jim Crow laws of the south.
They should apply equally to every would be imigrant, but as they are being enforced currently they do not. They discrimate against legal imigrants because they show deference, some might say preference to illegal imigrants.
Advocating the equal and fair enforcement of existing imigration law does not equate to ‘HATRED’.
[Mexico imigration laws are more strict than ours and more stringently enforced. Does that make Mexicans greater HATERS?]
Few illegals, if any, are ‘forced’ into an illegal status. It is a choice they make of their own free will.
I am and continue to be a live and let live guy.
But when foreign nationals, legal and illegal are parading in cities across america in the hundreds of thousand and carrying flags from their home land and demanding from us ‘rights’ which our constituion does not grant them, then I become a little less hospitable.
That is like an uninvited guest in my home complaining about the cuisine and demanding equal status with my children.
I know people who are in this country illegally, some of them are fellow followers of Christ. I make trips to the border 5 or 6 times a year to support primarily christians, but also non-christians in Mexico. I have a heart for spanish speaking people.
I believe I am representative of most christian americans when I say I want our borders secured and our existing imigration laws enforced and additional laws enacted that will make it a crime to knowingly employ undocumented or illegal aliens.
If employment is scarce or unavailable most of the people who are here illegally will self deport and ICE can deal with the remainder.
We are in hard economic times and there should be no reason any american citizen or permanent resident should not be able to find a job if they able bodied and willing to work.
And last but certainly not least, we have enough home grown derelicts who abuse drugs and alcohol and then get behind the wheel of an automobile then kill other people. We do not need to be importing them from other countries.
Then there are the violent criminals who are here illegally who prey on law abiding citizens. We have more than enough home grown predators. We don’t need to import more.
The lame and worn tactic of lilberals is to lable their opponents as ‘haters’.
Please do not fall prey to their methods.
I’m not the one rambling, carder. I am speaking nothing but the truth from a perspective you don’t care to understand. I think you should re-read my post. I mentioned that criminals should and aught to be punished. Clearly you did not care to fully comprehend the entirety of my post. Not every person that goes through the naturalization process is approved today either. You can’t seriously say that every person who is here illegally is on WIC. I don’t think that’s a bad idea… (joining the military). In fact there are thousands of illegal people who have not only joined our military branches, but died for this country. I am not confusing anything.
Elisabeth, that’s not even funny. You and carder know exactly what I meant. That is just immature.
I’m not being immature… you’re asking us not to call a group of people by the term for that group of people because they are people with names. Well, as my teenagers would say, “No duh!”
It is an accurate label for a group of people who have violated our nation’s immigration laws. We are the only country in the world that tolerates this behavior and it is endangering our country. It does people who are fleeing horrific situations no good whatsoever if our lax border controls allow the same drug cartels and corruption that destroyed their home country to destroy ours!
You can’t seriously say that every person who is here illegally is on WIC.
Never said that. Stop reading things that aren’t there.
I simply exposed the truth on this broad statement:
Another misconception is that they are here for welfare… you must be a US citizen to even apply for it, so that isn’t true, they are not here to ‘steal’ anything.
And this broad statement:
If the immigration process was like it was back when Ellis Island was open, of course every immigrant that is here illegally would go through it.
Both were inaccurate statements. Just calling you out over the internet, that’s all.
What a little person you are, carder. Did that make you feel better? Did that make you feel like a big man? Grow up, will you? What I said is accurate, I understand that just like in any group of people there are good and bad ones, however the vast majority of people who are here illegally are here to work not steal. I see it from both sides, you only see it from (barely) one. Most of what you and others have stated only goes to show how little people really know about everything that is going on. Re-read my posts and truly try to understand and picture all the perspectives involved. I am not going to be combative and I certainly will not reduce myself to your level. I will keep you in my prayers though. I hope you never see or experience what many people have from this.
Dear Cecilia,
PS I’m a woman, but that’s besides the point.
No need to meltdown, love.
You said, “you must be a US citizen to even apply for it”
I proved, using a governement-run website, that ‘s not necessarily true. That was quite mature, I thought.
You said, “of course every immigrant that is here illegally would go through it.” when you spoke of Ellis Island.
I proved, again, that was not completely true.
What’s funny is that in your following post you actually proved me correct.
So no, what you said was not entirely accurate. Now, if you want to lash out and say that I’m refusing to see the truth as you see it, by all means, welcome to the First Amendment.
Just know that if you’re going to post inaccuries, I reserve the right to correct them.
And yes, do pray for me…I need all the help I can get.
Wow. This post and its accompanying comments really drive home to me the amount of racism in this country, particularly among conservatives. Every comment on this board is assuming that all anchor babies are born to Mexicans here to steal our welfare benefits.
I am an anchor baby and I am not Mexican. I am Caucasian and my family is from Europe. My parents came to this country illegally, had their children, and returned home so that my brothers and I could have dual citizenship. We then returned to the US as a family, legally, several years later. The fact that my parents had four children who were American citizens helped expedite the process. There are thousands and thousands of us here. And unlike Mexicans, many of whom are working low paying, labor intensive jobs for below minimum wage, the majority of immigrants from the same country, as me, both legal and illegal, are working pretty high-paying desirable jobs. Because we are more educated and speak English than many Mexicans we are well-connected in this country and have access to networks in various fields.
Because we speak English and our skin is white no one even seems to care that Europeans are having anchor babies, too. Most people don’t even know. Everyone is so focused on stopping the brown folks from coming here that many fairer-skinned folks breeze right in under the radar and take advantage. I know illegal European immigrants that wouldn’t stoop to doing jobs that lots of Mexicans are more than happy to take.
Actually, Len, I, and many others, are just as angry at European, Asian, and any other type of group of illegal alien who try to work the system here to their own advantage. There are rules and those who don’t follow them shouldn’t be rewarded.
While it would be hypocritical for you to say much about illegal immigration or anchor babies, being one and having benefited from your parents’ illegal activities…. do not assume that you know that those of us opposed to illegal immigration only dislike Mexican illegal immigration. The mexican drug cartels, however, are the reason that that particular group is grabbing a large part of the national debate. If you don’t like the fact that this is the case, take it up with the people putting bounties on the heads of American law enforcement.
“While it would be hypocritical for you to say much about illegal immigration or anchor babies, being one and having benefited from your parents’ illegal activities….”
I find this comment funny considering that any time a poster on this board brings up abortion exceptions being allowed for the victims of rape a very common response is, “WHY SOULD THE BABY BE PUNISHED FOR THE CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR OF HIS/HER FATHER?” Does that only apply in situations regarding abortion, Elisabeth?
Just sayin’.
Also, are you saying that I cannot disapprove of my parents’ behavior? That this would make me a hypocrite? That the child of a criminal is a hypocrite if they speak out against crime but had benefitted as a child from their parents’ criminal behavior? A child whose parents paid the rent with drug money, perhaps? I was very careful to word my comment so that is was only an observation of the tone of previous comments I have read on this site, and it did reflect any opinion I may hold on the matter.
I have only seen drug cartels brought up a few times as a reason for sealing up our border with Mexico on Jill’s website. More often the idea that Mexicans are stealing our jobs and using our welfare benefits is given as justification for action against illegal aliens.
You have seen drug cartels brought up EVERY time that I have posted on the topic because it is the reality in Arizona and one of several main reasons I moved away.
And don’t yell at me.
If you were to disapprove, I’m sure that other illegal families would look at you for being disapproving and say, “Well, you already got your citizenship due to your parents’ illegal activities. Pretty convenient for you to disapprove now of what we are doing to gain the same advantage.”
Hence my statement above. You can disapprove all you want or say whatever you want… but the charge of hypocrisy would likely be made and it would have at least the appearance of merit.
Are you really going to equate not being granted U.S. citizenship as a punishment on par with dismemberment and death? Especially as there is nothing to preclude said child from going through the proper channels and becoming a citizen on his/her own once he or she is of legal age. (Not that I have made a statement on here as to the actual 14th amendment issue myself.) Not giving someone something is not the same as punishing someone.
Frankly, I don’t think the 14th amendment needs to be changed to put an end to the anchor baby situation. There is some question as to whether it truly applies to those here of their own free will illegally.
I was not yelling at you, I was emphasizing a sentiment I have seen repeated on this site many times. And you are the only poster here I have seen mention Mexican drug cartels. You are not the only person commenting on articles about immigration.
In your first post you state that it WOULD be hypocritical of me to make any statement denouncing anchor babies. In your second post directed at me you say, “but the charge of hypocrisy would likely be made and it would have at least the appearance of merit.” (Emhpasis mine).
So what is it, Elisabeth? Would I be a hyporcite, or would it be possible for a person make that assumption? Those are two different statements you are making. Would you care to clarify which one most closely reflects your opinion?
And I am not stating that illegal residence is at all on the same level as abortion. Please point out where I said that.
I am asking you if the argument that “A child should not be punished for the crimes of his or her father” applies across the board to all criminal activity, or only to select crimes that certain people decide it should apply to. Perhaps only to felonies, but if your parents committed only misdemeanors it’s A-OK for their kids to suffer consequences on Mom’s behalf?
I happen to think it would be hypocritical for you to condemn others for what your parents did, illegally, for you.
And there are certain things for which, yes, children will bear the natural consequences of their parents’ actions, both good and bad. To equate that with “punishment” is really ridiculous. My children live in a small house in Idaho and share bedrooms because of choices that my husband and I have made. Other children live in high rises in big cities because of choices their parents made.
To say that a child is a Mexican citizen because its parents were Mexican citizens who were not legally present in the U.S. at the time of its birth is not a punishment of any level, felony, misdemeanor, or whatever else you would like to portray it to be. To say that a child is a German citizen because its parents were German citizens who were not legally present in the U.S. at the time of its birth is not a punishment. (Unless you think it is a punishment to be Mexican….)
So would a man whose college education was financed by his father, who obtained the money through his drug cartel, be a hypocrite for speaking out against organized crime and illegal drugs as an adult?
How about a person conceived in rape? Would they be a hyprocrite for speaking out against rape since that is how their life began? Isn’t the fact that this person is alive a benefit to their father’s illegal activity?
Just clarifying where the line is drawn for who is allowed to speak out against the misdeeds of their parents and who is not given that luxury in this country.
How about a person who was given the right to be alive speaking out for the right to kill the unborn?
Look, I’m allowed to have opinions. Speak out however you want, but if you benefitted from your parents illegal activities don’t be surprised when people think its hypocritical for you to condemn others for doing the same thing.
I’m not following your example. What did the parents of the pro-abortion person do that was illegal or immoral? I think the pro-choice movement is hypocritical. And I think abortion is wrong and should be illegal. I’m not sure what that has to do with our conversation here, Elisabeth.
You are allowed to have opinions, yes, but when you state that I would be a hypocrite for saying that what my parents did was wrong, since I benefitted from those actions, then it also follows this logic that a person conceived in rape would be a hypocrite for saying that rape is wrong.
Elisabeth,
If you think that because of what my parents did I cannot speak out against “anchor babies” without being a hypocrite, but the person conceived in rape is not a hypocrite for condemning rape, and the child of the drug cartel leader must support orgainized crime and illegal drugs for the rest of his life, then it is YOU who is the hypocrite.
As the baby boomers continue to age, I think we’re going to be begging for immigrants to come into this country – both from an economic standpoint, and in regards to the number of workers in some of these states.
Hmm. You mean we need workers and we don’t have enough to replace and support the aging boomer generation? Surely abortion in no way affected the shortage of able-bodied workers. I mean, it’s not like 1/3 of them were aborted or anything… *cough*
Oh, but I know. Abortion only has POSITIVE effects.
A. I’m Puerto Rican
B. I live in a neighborhood where whites are in the minority. Huge minority!
C. I have never mentioned “Mexicans” in my posts.
Racism, shmacism.
In regards to the accusations of racism here and among conservatives made by Len, you are incorrect. In this thread I myself, Cecilia, and MaryLee have all vocally opposed the term “anchor baby” on the grounds that it’s discrimatory, stereotyping, and offensive and have even refuted others’ stereotypes and misconceptions about immigrants. Please don’t stereotype and lump us all in the same basket together(just a figure of speech).
It seems that a lot of people were confused regarding what I said. I never said that enforcing immigration laws is hatred. I was talking about changing the 14th ammendment, which has absolutely nothing with enforcing current immigration laws. There is no need to change the 14th amendment. Just secure the borders and then enforce the laws. I do believe it is hatred to want children born in the US to illegal parents to not be given citizenship in the country they grow up in, and quite honestly, love, too. Have you ever thought that this country is all they know??? Since their parents are illegal, a lot of them don’t visit home. (Some do, but a lot don’t). Changing the 14th amendment, to me, is as radical as some of Obama’s ideas. It’s just a conservative extreme, but an extreme nonetheless.