Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
- I’m Black and I Want More “Stuff” and “Things”: An Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly
- Walmart Workers Walk Off Job in First Wave of 1000 Protests
- How Germany Is Getting to 100 Percent Renewable Energy
- Already? Obama Tells Supporters to Expect 'Bitter Pills'
- Bailout 'Of the People, By the People' Exposes Bankers' Greed
- How Germany Is Getting to 100 Percent Renewable Energy
- I’m Black and I Want More “Stuff” and “Things”: An Open Letter to Bill O’Reilly
- FBI's Abuse of the Surveillance State is the Real Scandal Needing Investigation
- Walmart Workers Walk Off Job in First Wave of 1000 Protests
- Human Intelligence Peaked Thousands of Years Ago: Study
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Other Side of the Anchor: Where Else Do American-Born Kids Belong?
The screeds about "anchor babies" in the media reflect the scale of the paranoia about a foreign invasion destroying America from within. Implicit in the idea of the "dropped" baby is the notion that simply being born in America doesn't make you any less of a foreigner, and that these children of immigrants actually belong back in their parents' country of origin.
While the alienation of immigrants has become a self-fulfilling prophecy of ever-deepening segregation, the dispute about which children "belong" here should be answered simply by asking, what else would a kid born and raised in America be, other than American?
Latino America, a reporting project based at Arizona State University, looks at the consequences for American-born children who are forced to return to Mexico. (h/t Immigration Prof)
Consider the family of Margaret Acuitlapa, a U.S. citizen who moved with her three children to Mexico to follow her deported husband:
"The first year we were here, we were treated as strangers," Acuitlapa said of her family's arrival in Malinalco, a small town in southwestern Mexico. "Things were unpleasant for all of us."...Although she moved to keep her family together, the life they have faced in Mexico has put different strains on her marriage, and her children.
"Our kids didn't speak any Spanish when we moved here. Even now, my 10-year-old daughter is reading at a second-grade level," she said of the struggles her children have faced in school. "My 15-year-old son is still having a hard time with everything."
An older youth imagines life as another kind of "alien":
Kendrick Nunez, 18, is one of those citizen children who would be affected if the "anchor baby" bill became law. He and his citizen sister currently live in Arkansas without their parents, who were deported to Mexico. He finds the logic of the movement confusing."That seems unreasonable. What, you're just born in the air?" Nunez says. "I recognize there is a problem, but there has to be a better solution."
Nunez and his younger sister initially followed their parents and other siblings to Mexico but returned to the United States so they could continue studying within the American education system.
"I didn't go to school when I was in Mexico. I spent my time working -- in a car wash, a water park, a field," Nunez said. "I was illegal there. All my best friends in Arkansas were graduating. I felt like I was missing out on something."
It's like a reverse mirror image of the undocumented experience in the U.S.: the cultural alienation, low-wage jobs preempting opportunities for education. Nunez, the "anchor baby" whom many immigration restrictionists want to "send home" to Mexico, finds himself "illegal" on that side of the border.
The experience is repeated over and over again for deportees who find themselves not just separated from loved ones, but alienated and often demonized once repatriated. The redemption story of Qing Hong Wu -- a former delinquent who was saved from deportation by the state at the last minute -- is the rare exception that underscores the rule.
The assumption behind the "anchor baby" myth is that birthright citizenship is not natural, that an immigrant mother's connection to her progeny is merely through her womb, as opposed to the nurturing, labor and aspirations she's poured into her child on American soil. Yet the dehumanizing language betrays a cruelly determinist concept of parenthood, because the one "American" inheritance that the mother passes onto the baby is the violation of a draconian immigration law.
We accept the term "naturalization" to describe the process of the foreign-born taking on a new citizenship. What could be more natural than being accepted as a citizen of the only home you've ever known?
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
140 Comments so far
Show AllAgain, n-o b-o-r-d-e-r-s
http://www.ryanhartman.wordpress.com
The law makes people who sneak into the country for work "illegal immigrates." Therefore, the fruit of the poisoned tree should not be allow to benefit from the illegal acts. If one breaks the law, one cannot expect to benefit from the crime. Do you think Bernie Madoff should be allowed to keep his stolen money? No. Then why let the children of people who stole into this country become citizens? It is not logical.
Criminals have made themselves beyond the "jurisdiction" of the USA, therefore, enforcing the law puts them on the "right" side of the jurisdiction issue.
The children of illegals have no right to be citizens; they should be striped of their illegally gotten citizenship and deported to where they would have been before the crime.
War criminals who killed Jews during WWII have been striped of citizenship and deported because the citizenship was had through fraud. The children of illegal immigrates have gotten USA citizenship through fraud. This should not stand.
BTW, the only people who make out with illegal immigration and off shoring of jobs is corporate and business America. Who looses? The hard working citizen and unions.
Deport the illegals then maybe they will right their own governments.
Good Grief.
Your statement that persons born in the United States by "illegals" are themselves "illegal" is not correct. By current law, they have American citizenship. They did not obtain it "by fraud." By the way, Mexican law mirrors American law in this regard. If you are born in Mexico, you get Mexican citizenship.
Your comparison of illegal immigration to Bernie Madoff is far-fetched. Children of undocumented workers have committed no crime. As they article says, they become thoroughly socialized into American society. They are aliens when they return to Mexico, unable to succeed in school because of language problems.
You talk about people "breaking the law" to come to this country to work. That sort of crime is way different from that committed by criminals. Undocumented workers commit no crimes against others; they do not come to rob, rape, and steal. They tend to work harder at unpleasant jobs than native born Americans. They are not committing criminal acts, but are seeking better lives for themselves. It is not right to compare them to ordinary criminals.
I am not opposed to controlling our borders. I would seek a solution to the problem by identifying employers who break the law, working with Mexico to come up with a strategy backed by both governments, having a national database of green card holders, and--yes--surveillance at the borders. But I am opposed to the foolishness advocated by some of sending them all back where they came from. That is an invitation to chaos.
I guess you are choosing one chaos over another.
Indeed, it is a crime to enter this nation illegally. If you choose to ignore this fact, then how can we discuss any solution?
The 14th amendment was "law" made to insure that freed negro slaves would not be deported after the American Civil War. The amendment was addressing a real problem of people who were considered property and were forcefully brought into the USA.
Any national from another country, including Mexico, comes here freely and knowingly. They know that they are breaking the law before they come here. They conspire to break the law by using guides. They come here to work, which has the effect of cheapening labor, pushing down the overall standard of living of all here but, raising the illegals standard of living. The illegals are "stealing" opportunity from the American citizen. The thief is named "opportunity costs."
"Opportunity cost is the cost related to the next-best choice available to someone who has picked between several mutually exclusive choices.[1] It is a key concept in economics. It has been described as expressing "the basic relationship between scarcity and choice."[2] The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that scarce resources are used efficiently.[3] Thus, opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
How is this fair to the citizen of this nation? Immigration laws are made to protect the citizen first.
We can see that the opportunity cost of children of illegals are very real. The illegals have committed fraud upon the citizen of the USA and their own children. Yet, the illegals bank on the corporate elite giving them and their children "rights" in exchange for their own illegal acts. The illegals are disparate, but let them use their disparate to change Mexico, not the USA. I am not my brothers keeper.
Indeed, if you hate the American war of "humanitarian" assistance, why do you not object to the humanitarian assistance given to Mexicans and other illegals? The humanitarian label is phony as the wars.
Mexico has immigration law as strict as any in the USA. And they protect their citizens from legal immigration from Central America. That is a function of government, to protect its own citizens.
BTW, who really wants Mexican citizenship? It sure isn't the illegals coming from Mexico.
In your first post you claimed children of illegals born in the United States were here illegally. That is not correct. They are American citizens. You may object to that law, but as of now, babies born here are citizens.
Certainly undocumented immigrants have crossed the border without papers. That makes them "illegal." My point was that it was not fair to compare them with criminals who commit heinous acts. It's not the same at all.
I do not favor opening the door to all undocumented immigrants from Mexico. Few people would. The question is, what should we do about undocumented immigrants already here? You would send them back to Mexico, I guess. Do you understand the human costs involved in such an action? The effects on families? Would you send people born in America back to Mexico even though they grew up here and don't speak the language? Separate husbands and wives? Mothers from children?
You will also find out, when the truth is exposed, that many of these immigrants are not laborers in the fields, but are respected members of the communities, entrepreneurs and professionals. Will you send them back, too? Even though they are valuable members of our community?
It's easy to jump on the bandwagon and holler about injustice, but compromises have to be made in order for society to function. Your ancestors most likely came here penniless and without language skills, perhaps at a time when the borders were not controlled at all. (My ancestors came over well before Staten Island--they just left the old country) We got breaks--we should pass some of that on.
DROSERA: Thank you for your common sense and decency on this issue.
This topic has been published on at least 10 prior occasions (in different articles), and a number of commentators have laid out the facts, i.e. the big picture.
Due to policies taken on the part of elites--such items as NAFTA, Mexicans are forced to cross the border to secure work to feed their families.
Furthermore, all this hatred probably would not have arisen had the fiscal pie not been cut so tightly that the "little people" end up fighting over crumbs. History is full of other such examples; and even if the American public did not have hatred in its sights, Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly saw fit to foment it.
Given the unsavory fact that our budget has been decimated by enormous sums thrown at the military, a ridiculous amount lavished on the bankster class, and inane tax cuts to those who need "help" least... there just aren't funds for what IS needed.
When people feel the financial pinch, they start to become angry, insecure, and volatile. So long as there is an enemy or scapegoat to vent their frustrations at, there is no need to examine the CAUSES for the current epidemic of fiscal woes.
It's a shame that even in a forum like this, where incisive ideas and explanations have been repeatedly disseminated, some still cling to the easy kneejerk reaction of racism; and then use a letter-of-law interpretation of justice to bludgeon fellow HUMAN beings. NOT cool.
Well, if we don't enforce the law what do we have? It is not my fault that the economic elite have set the poor from Mexico against labor in this country.
The divide and conquer strategy of the ruling elite is working very well. If we don't stand for ourselves what good is having a country.
The poor Mexicans who have come here will just have to return to Mexico and fight there own battle against the injustices there.
Why should we allow them here to promote economic injustice? There is no good reason we should.
Who cannot have sympathy for the poor? But, one has to take care of their own house before one can take care of someone else's, right?
I guess your attitude, as a caring person, makes it clear why the progressive don't get political progress. They scatter their resources and dilute their ability to progress. Your caring attitude leaves you open to the uncritical acceptance of BS like comes from the mouth of shills like Obama.
I am glad you are generous and sympathetic to poor people, but how about support policies in this country which help the poor worker and citizen in this country. Please, stop being an unintentional tool of the economic elite.
I am not asking anyone to stop having empathy, but just too put your energy to helping American workers before we help Mexican immigrants.
And to help Americans first, we have to turn our back, temporarily on the illegal immigrant.
DCH: I'll tell you what law I hold respect for, the LAW OF KARMA.
And I'll fill you in on a little secret: while times may be tough now for many Americans, generally speaking, our nation has lived off the FAT of other lands for too long. And frankly, it IS fast becoming pay-back time.
You know, of course, about our nation's disproportionate use of fossil fuels, and that its bankers exported a form of economics that is to world finance what VD is to sexual relations.
If every one of us spent $1000 sending food, clothes, and medical supplies to, pick a nation:
Haiti
Iraq
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Vietnam
Kosovo
...that would only put a DENT in what is "owed." Now granted, you and I, who live low on the U.S. fiscal food chain may be less responsible (in term of our moral debt ratio) than our ultra-wealthy elite compatriots, but we are all Americans... and our nation's fate, already in line to experience significant karmic blowback, would at least be somewhat altered for the better were a complete reversal to take place. Its prescription? That instead of using our military to take from other lands, we elected to become THE givers. (And this could pertain to our policy towards so-called illegals, too.)
During the most economically challenged portion of my life (as a single Mother), I still was generous. It might have only meant sharing a meal; but I'll tell you something... I learned that when you give, you truly do prime some kind of invisible cosmic pump... and it insures that you, too, will get what you need.
The best policy for America's financial woes is for generosity to replace fear and hoarding. Now THAT would be a revolution!
This thread is an ugly and frightening display of hatred, bigotry and implied violent threats and I admire you for attempting to counter that.
America is to blame for the problems in Haiti and Pakistan? I don't think so...
An excellent summary and a cool balm. How many words I might have used to almost say it.
Thank you, BARDAMU. I find it annoying that these topics get dissected on a regular basis, the truth separated from the chaff so to speak; but then some past or present posters show up to push the same agenda long after it's been disqualified by such things as "The Justice Principle."
I've seen this same inverted thinking on: the climate change threads, those that challenge the official 911 story, those relating how Obama is governing, and ANY topic specifically related to women's rights.
It's hard to say if the hard-headed posters don't read the rebuttals, can't think beyond their own constructs, are born-authoritarians... or if their paychecks depend upon them touting disproven theses, along with other ignorant nonsense. Some have taken bullshit to a high art form on these threads; nor do they tire of hearing their own redundant responses, with Truth gone missing from each posted clause.
I was using a metaphor of a metaphor in the "fruit of the poisonous tree." Under American law this "is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally."
But, I would extend this to any issue from the illegals person. Their work in the USA is illegal, their issue ought to be illegal, too.
But, humanitarian issues aside, we here in the USA are engaged in a class war. The rich don't give a wit about the Mexicans or any other illegal; the rich only want to exploit the working man, both Mexican and American so they play one off against the other.
Well, in the USA we have a choice, either play the game according to the rules made by the rich or make them play by the rules of the working man. If we have sympathy for illegals and let them compete for our jobs we loose. If we send them back, we restrict the labor pool and make the rich play our game.
Sorry, but the people who came here for work must leave and take their children with them, without born citizenship. Let them fight their own battle in Mexico or wherever they came from, but don't make our jobs cheaper and hard to protect.
BTW, I am an atheist. I don't believe in the existence of god.
>>was using a metaphor of a metaphor in the "fruit of the poisonous tree." Under American law this "is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally
The single largest "Poisonous tree" in the world is the United States of America. It poisons lands from Vietnam to Iraq with its Chemical weapons, from Somalia to The Honduras with its coups and Militaries, from Iceland to Diego Garcia with its Militaries leaving waste the world over.
Are YOU benefiting by the virtue of being a Citizen of that Country? Are you the fruit?
Until the USA brings it armies home, until the USA stops sponsoring coups in other countries, until it stops financing brutal right wing thugs that line thier pockets and the of US Corporations with the treasure of the poor, then ond only then will you have cause to argue about "illegal Immigrants".
Actually, most immigrants from Mexico are careful to retain their citizenship, and many if not most wish to return.
Americans can enter Mexico more easily than they can return to the United States. The Mexicans are indeed hard on Central Americans that cross the border. So what? The US bombs people. Does that make it alright for Mexico to bomb people? It's a lousy argument.
War disguised as humanitarian assistance and humanitarian assistance are not the same things. To a large extent, they are mutually exclusive. To support one, oppose the other.
Labor here gets cheaper faster when jobs are exported. Americans at least get the work of being able to provide some services themselves. Were the laws less draconian, immigrants could organize against their employers, get better wages, hire more services, and provide more work for Americans as well.
The laws you support create the conditions you complain about.
I would go through it at length, but Sioux Rose just summed it up so nicely above.
I am as sympathetic as anyone here about the plight of illegal immigrants, but the government of the USA has a duty to enforce the laws against illegals working in the USA.
Mexico has real deep economic problems. The Ruling Elite of Mexico are very oppressive toward the poor in their country.
But, this does not mean that I should let the poor take jobs away from my countymen. If someone wants to immigrate to the USA, fine, but do it legally. The illegals, from whatever country they come, are cheating.
If you agree with the policy of allowing illegals to work, you support the continuation of the corrupt exploitation of workers in the USA, both illegals and local.
I will say again, we are in a class war. It is the rich internationalist against the local and immigrant citizen.
Mexico is an economic basket case. The rich dominate. The rich of the USA and Mexico made NAFTA, exacerbating the economic inequalities. NAFTA is harmful policy. It caused the increase of illegal immigration from Mexico.
But, this does not mean that I should continue to support NAFTA or illegal immigration. One corrective policy is to send the illegal home with their kids. There is no way to take the USA citizenship from the children born here, but it is my opinion that we ought to because the citizenship was had from fraud and the criminal act of sneaking into this country and working. The employer should be punished too, with jail. The employer is just as criminal as the illegal. And your support of this corruption make you complicate, too.
I just wonder what the hatred is of the USA? Illegal immigration does not make the USA a better society. It hurts hard working, honest citizens. Don't you people see this? Don't you want to correct this injustice? It is a fraud upon the citizen and the illegal.
If you have read anything I write, you must know, that I an adamently against the criminal wars and occupations by the USA. I think our election system is corrupt, the military industral complex is out of control, the banksters are very corrupt, but all this does not mean I should support the continued corruption of illegal immigration which benefits the economic ruling elite.
Don't you get this? Why the hatred because I want a better future for Americans? You don't expect that continuing the policy of illegal immigration will help America, do you? The Mexicans will have to solve their own problems, probably through revolution. I don't want America to be involved. You want to continue the involvement. You are supporting the intervention you say you are against.
Why is this? If you are American, don't you care about your own future? The USA cannot help anyone else until we get our own house in order. And letting things stay the way they are, will not work.
Therefore, the USA must deport the illegal immigrant and there children, unless they want to let their children be brought up in an orphanage. I believe their citizenship should be revoked, but if not then they can come back when they are eighteen or stay as above.
I wish people here would care more about the future of the USA, then maybe things would change in this country. It appears that progressive here just like to whine, but do nothing to change the corruption.
Undocumented workers have committed a crime: failing to get documentation. Why is that so hard? Yes, they're hard workers; no, they've committed no other crimes; yes, they're lovely people, but they have commited that one crime.
That said, they still deserve to be treated with fairness, dignity and respect while they're being processed and shipped back - with their innocent babies.
That is off topic.
You will not find me supporting American ruling elite imperialism. But, this does not mean I should support foreign invasion from Mexico. The Mexican government is very happy that their poor and oppressed go north. It lessens the probability of a revolution to over throw the ruling class of Mexico.
Immigration is not invasion. Mexico is deeply penetrated by American black ops forces, an extensive shadow paramilitary network. The reverse is not true.
Unless I missed something, no one means that you intend to support American imperialism. But the immigration laws that now exist do serve to support American imperialism, and if you support those laws, you support that imperialism in at least some ways, if not directly or consistently.
Immigration laws in conjunction with American foreign policy and largely American transnational corporate policy function to force foreign nationals to enter the United States. That actually creates the 2-tiered labor system that I suspect you oppose.
Yes, though, the ruling class in Mexico is happy to send cheap labor abroad, as long as it maintains a balance favorable to them, just as the ruling class in the United States is happy to accept Mexican laborers, as long as it maintains a balance favorable to the elites of the United States.
I think we are talking in circles.
There are many illegals who are violent criminals, too. Look here:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/08/27/immigration.arrests/index.html?hpt=T2
What are you to propose about this? Deport them, put them in jail, or give them documents to stay?
And then what if they have children here? Are you going to let them stay with their kids? They will continue to be in criminal gangs and break our laws. What now?
We must become bosses of our country. And to be a boss, you have to make tough decisions. We must look at opportunity costs, first, then figure in "karma" last.
Deport the illegal gang members and their children. If born here, I think we should revoke their citizenship; barring that then they can stay or leave and return when eighteen.
I wish you cared about the USA more, if a citizen. We are in a class war against the rich.
That's a different issue - making an illegal immigrant of yourself isn't the answer. I'm seriously offended by American interventionism in may countries, which contributes to the migrations. If America feels some responsibility for them, then the root causes (imperialism) need to be corrected. But it doesn't, eh. Instead, it abuses the border jumpers.
How you can compare war criminals who killed Jews with children of illegals is beyond me. There is no comparison. The majority of people fleeing Mexico are usually hardworking, uneducated and hopelessly in deep poverty. They have no more chance to "right their own governments" than an American unemployed black woman with a child to support or a bum living on the streets in LA can.
The children of the illegals who came to the US had no say in the matter. Deport those evil little kids, that will teach them to have the audacity to get born in America.
Unless you belong to one of the native American Indian tribes, you also deserve to be deported since your criminal ancestors murdered them, illegally stole their land and confined the survivors to reservations.
Carax said "How you can compare war criminals who killed Jews with children of illegals is beyond me. There is no comparison."
I would add to your comment on the prior post that there is no compassion either.
Native Americans were a conquered people. Their culture and society was destroyed, then replaced with the Anglo European culture. It is the Native Americans who were deported to "reservations."
Did you miss this in history class? If I have to explain the right of conquest to you, I will have to back up all the way to the beginning. It would be a burden for me to have to educate you and unfair as arguing with children.
The children of people who knowing committed fraud are the fruit of that fraud. Legally, the fruit is rotten, too. Sorry, but the parents are the ones at fault for putting the fraud on their children. I should not be accountable to make the fraud right even if there is no cost to me. But, there is a big opportunity cost to me and my fellow citizens to whom I own support. I have the choice of obeying the law and supporting my fellow citizens for well paying jobs and a decent society or I can support illegal immigrants and support them and their exploitive employers.
This is a class war. I choose to support my fellow citizens over law breaking illegal immigrants and the law breaking exploitive employers.
How about you?
Well, I guess you just don't understand historical terms. Maybe I should use baby talk for you.
Read a little history before you run your ignorant mouth, OK?
DCH
Just wonder what higher good is served by breaking up families in an effort to get all "illegals" out of the country. Does that 'opportunity' that is 'stolen' from Americans justify separating a mother from her children? DCH, how far will you go in 'supporting your fellow citizens over law breaking illegal immigrants? If breaking up families is OK, what isn't? Is it OK to track them down? Shoot them? Make sure their kids don't get medical care? Seems to me you've sacrificed a hell of a lot of your humanity in supporting your fellow citizens. By the way, count me out of those you want to support.
DCH: If you're serious (in your posts) I hope you open your heart before you require a transplant.
Apart from that, probably 30-50% of CD readers smoke an occasional joint. That's against the law. The question is... what kind of law; and is it a law worth respecting in a nation that loves its guns, tobacco, and alcohol?
Law is a manmade abstraction, and when it departs substantially from its Divine equivalent, it SHOULD be broken.
Did you know that certain sexual practices are still considered illegal? If someone smashed down your door and caught you "in the act" and wanted to follow a letter of the law approach, they could potentially have you incarcerated.
I think your true reaction, fear-based is about "the money." It's that fear of "this illegal is going to take my job, or my cousin's job," or something along those lines. If we had a functioning economy, how many would be upset that there are Latinos working as hotel maids, slaving in fields, prepared to work in slaughterhouses, etc?
PLEASE, if you can't open your mind... allow your heart to be touched. These are human beings and they're already exploited. Why add more punishment to their load!
My dear friend. We are discussing illegal immigration taking the jobs of American citizens.
Who can argue with true humanitarian principles? I support them, but I don't believe we should needlessly sacrifice our poor working people to the god of the economic ruling elite.
This is a war, as class war. People get hurt in a war. It is the illegal who are putting the American working man and woman in a tight spot. It is hardly my fault that my solution will hurt the illegal immigrant. They choose to take the chance to break the law.
I can't help it that the ruling elite in Mexico and America conspired to hurt both the American and Mexico working man with NAFTA. But, to reverse the problem, one must reverse the damage.
Change the law, and send the illegals home.
No we aren't. "Illegal immigration taking the jobs of American citizens" is not the topic, it is merely one point of view in the discussion.
"The god of the economic ruling elite" wants working people at each others throats, and you are accommodating that. The wealthy people are not on the side of brown people.
Certainly people get hurt in class war, but you are calling for preemptively hurting the most vulnerable. How can that be justified?
Workers are not the one s putting "the American working man and woman in a tight spot." It is management that depresses wages and destroys jobs, not working people. No sort of legitimate pro-Labor position could include blaming workers rather than management. These desperate attempts to appear leftist and pro-Labor while calling for attacks on immigrants are probably more dangerous that overtly expressed racism and overtly expressed pro-management positions.
Can you rally imagine that round ups and mass detention and deportation could ever help working class people here? Corporations can have the same people do the same work south of the border at much lower wages than they can here. That is in fact happening,. In response to that, small businesses here who cannot outsource the work to other countries and pursue cheaper labor the way that the giant corporations and super-wealthy people can are where most immigrants seek work, and the immigrants seeking work here is in response to the predations of corporations south of the border.
It is entirely reactionary, illogical and hostile to the working class to call for the suppression of immigrant working class people, and your entire argument rests on the false and misleading premise that "they are taking our jobs."
The U.S. Constitution makes children born in this country citizens, just as it made you a citizen when you were born here. The Constitution says nothing about the parents of the children born here.
According to your logic, if your ancestors came here without permission (one or two hundred years ago) then their children, and ultimately, you, would be denied citizenship.
I have already address the Native American v. pilgrim. The native american were conquered. There society was destroyed and replaced by the Anglo European culture.
Did you miss that in history class?
Again, the benefit to the children of illegal immigrants is conveyed through the illegal act of coming into this country without legal means. Illegal immigration constitutes an "opportunity cost" to legal US citizens.
If I rob a bank, should I be able to keep the money? It is the fruit of my illegal act, just like the children of illegal immigrants are the fruit of their illegal act. What is different? The 14th Amendment was written to address a very different problem after the American civil war. Black were property brought here by force. Blacks were not considered human beings. This is very different from Mexicans stealing into this country freely and knowingly.
You just refuse to see the problem, but are blinded by the humanitarian interests of non citizens over citizens. To be a nation, we need to support one another and our mutual interests. If you don't think illegal immigration forcing wages down or taking jobs is a problem, then there is no claim I can make to change your mind.
Good Day.
>>The children of illegals have no right to be citizens; they should be striped of their illegally gotten citizenship and deported to where they would have been before the crime.
It does not matter what CRIMES the parents of children born in the United States might have committed. The law states that Children born in the United States of America are citizens of the United States of America.
How can you advocate breaking the law to strip away thier citizenship?
This is not unique to the USA.
Children born In Canada are Canadian Citizens. Children born in the United Kingdom are citizens of the United Kingdom.
Do you think the Children of Bernie Madoff should have their citizenship taken away? There are several million persons in Jail in the USA and 10 times that who have been charged with crimes. Should all of their children lose their citizenship because their parents Criminals?
The Children you speak of did not commit any fraud. They were born in the United States of America. They had no choice as to where they were born. The law states they are Citizens of the USA.
The Concept that the Child is not responsible for the crimes of his or her parents is hardly a new one.
Born citizenship is a policy of the ruling economic elite. The effect is well known.
But, why should we continue a harmful policy. Many developed countries have recently changed those same policies because of the economic disruptions of born citizenship.
Should not policies of the USA be beneficial to the poor of this country?
I am sympathetic to the poor of other countries, but we should not support policies which make us poor and poorer.
Born children of illegal immigrants only makes our situation harder to correct. We can stay a first world nation or become a third world nation, but we can't be both.
Letting the poor and disaffected compete with American workers is not good or sustainable policy. Illegal immigration is one part of the problem. If you do not want to take this issue on, then the ruling economic elite win against us all.
Why do you think you are a "first world nation" ?
Do you think it because you simply "harder working" or "more deserved"?
You are a "first world nation" because you slaughtered the indingents of your country , stole their land and then plundered the lands of your neighbours near and far.
One simple example but multiply this by a thousand times in countries the world over.
Guatemala elects a SOCIALIST to power. He decides to "redistribute wealth" by seizing lands held by foreign corporations and distributing it to the poor.
YOUR first world nation called "The United States of America" takes exception to this because United Fruit growers, owned in part by the Dulles brothers OWNS vast swathes of land in that country.
Your First world nation sponsors a coup and then arms and supplies THUGS to murder hundreds of thousands of Guatemala's poorest people.
Your first world nations President equates these mass Murderers with the "Founders of the United States of America".
So spare me your whining about Mexicans , or Central Americans "Stealing jobs from Americans" or "Breaking the law" when your nation roams the world SLAUGHTERING people for their resources.
Your "First World nation" murdered Millions in Vietnam alone , let alone the numbers murdered in Laos and Cambodia, and Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan and too many countries to list. So please don't play the "we are the victims" card with me.
Clean up your own corrupt Militaristic regime and put the Bushes and Cheney's and Reagans and Obama's in jail for THEIR crimes before you start mewling about "Criminals from Mexico".
All THEY want is a JOB . What in Earth does the United States of America WANT in Iraq?
The major reason your "Ruling economic elite" wins is because you keep blaming poor Mexicans and people living in mud huts for your problems.
Turn your fracking attention to the people that own 7 homes costing 10 million each and who throw 1 million dollar weddings...Juan making 6 bucks an hour is NOT the problem.
Putting to rest a tired old argument (continued)
The Reconstruction Framers' intent to make citizenship dependent not on the favor of the majority or the favored status of a person's ancestors, but rather on neutral, fixed conditions is evident from congressional debates. In proposing the language that would ultimately be ratified as the Citizenship Clause, Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan explained that his proposed addition would declare "that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."
Recognizing the sweep of this proposed language, both supporters and opponents of the Fourteenth Amendment understood the Citizenship Clause to grant birthright citizenship to children of aliens. In fact, this was a significant source of opposition: Senator Cowan lamented that the proposal would expand the number of Chinese in California and "Gypsies" in his home state of Pennsylvania by granting birthright citizenship to their children, even (as he put it) the children of those who owe no allegiance to the United States and routinely commit "trespass" within the country. No supporter of the Amendment rose to dispute Senator Cowan's view of the effect the proposed Amendment would have. To the contrary, Senator John Conness of California defended the proposed Citizenship Clause as sound policy, stating:
[With] respect to the children begotten of Chinese parents in California, ... it is proposed to declare that they shall be citizens .... I am in favor of doing so .... We are entirely ready to accept the provision proposed in this constitutional amendment, that the children born here of Mongolian parents shall be declared by the Constitution of the United States to be entitled to civil rights and to equal protection before the law with others."
In sum, the Citizenship Clause was proposed, enacted and ratified with the understanding that it granted automatic birthright citizenship to children born in the United States to alien parents.
http://acslaw.org/node/13424?gclid=CLiMkbPM36MCFQtN5wodRikkYg
Let's put this tired old argument to rest once and for all.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Guarantee of Birthright Citizenship
By Elizabeth Wydra, Chief Counsel, Constitutional Accountability Center
The opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is both sweeping and clear: "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." As discussed in my recent ACS Issue Brief, the words and history of this constitutional text establish that it provides automatic citizenship-"birthright citizenship"-to anyone born in this country regardless of race, color or status of one's parents or ancestors.
Despite the plain language of the Amendment and its powerful history, opponents of birthright citizenship continue to fight its meaning and purpose. Most of the efforts to narrow the meaning of birthright citizenship have been motivated by a desire to exclude from citizenship children born on U.S. soil to undocumented immigrants. Unfortunately, this anti-citizenship political movement shows no signs of slowing: in Congress, bills have been introduced each year for more than a decade to end automatic citizenship for persons born on U.S. soil to parents who are in the country illegally; in California, signatures are being gathered for a ballot proposition that would create a sub-class of U.S.-born citizens by issuing different birth certificates to children born in the United States to undocumented immigrant parents; and, in the 2008 presidential campaign, several Republican candidates expressed skepticism that the Constitution even guarantees birthright citizenship.
The anti-citizenship arguments are debunked in detail in my Issue Brief. But the fatal flaws in these arguments are not the most compelling reasons for rejecting them in favor of the broad and clear definition of citizenship intended by our Reconstruction Framers. Rather, the text, history and principles behind the Citizenship Clause demonstrate that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment created an elegantly simple and intentionally fixed rule of birthright citizenship that was intended to serve as a long-overdue fulfillment of the promise of inalienable freedom and liberty in the Declaration of Independence. Providing for birthright citizenship regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude righted the horrible wrong of Dred Scott v. Sandford, in which the Supreme Court held that persons of African descent born in the United States could not be citizens under the Constitution, and ensured that all native-born children, whether members of an unpopular minority or descendants of privileged ancestors, would have the inalienable right to citizenship and all its privileges and immunities.
The text of the ratified Citizenship Clause embodies the jus soli rule of citizenship, under which citizenship is acquired by right of the soil (contrasted with jus sanguinis, according to which citizenship is granted according to bloodline.) This form of citizenship embodies the American rejection of aristocracy and privileged ancestry; under the Citizenship Clause, one's citizenship turns on an objective circumstance-place of birth-not familial status.
(continued below)
DCH:
Where should I start? First, according to the XIV Amendment to the Constitution anyone born here is a citizen. If you have a problem with that, amend the Amendment. Criminals are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. If they weren't, they could not be tried. The case of War Criminals is different. They committed the acts, they lied. For the undocumented children, they are under Constitutional protection and have committed no act of their own. Finally, the word is stripped, zebras are striped but not immigrants.
"Fruit of the poisoned tree?" The only poisonous thing here is your hate-filled rhetoric.
"War criminals who killed Jews during WWII have been striped of citizenship and deported because the citizenship was had through fraud."
Do you often equate immigration with Nazism?
"The children of illegals have no right to be citizens; they should be striped of their illegally gotten citizenship and deported to where they would have been before the crime."
So the children are criminals too? Hm, but if the 'fruit of the poison tree' is begotten after the 'crime,' where should it then be sent? It can't go back to its country of origin, since its origin would be the 'crime scene' AKA the US. A child can't be born in two countries. But really...
A person born on American soil is an American. Simple as that. My great grandmother and grandfathers weren't criminals when they came to America. I'm not a criminal, nor will my children be criminals, no matter where they are born.
The only thing criminal is the anti-human stance people like the 'illegally gotten striper' here continue to put forth.
Shouldn't people who enter a country without the proper documentation and ritual (visas, passports, immigration processes) be sanctioned, returned? People who sneak across borders are breaking the law, yes? Shouldn't they have applied for work/student permits or immigrant status? (That doesn't justify shooting at them or mis-treating them in any way.)
If not, they ought to be held and returned to their country of origin. Babies should accompany parents. Children should have the nationality of the mother, and their right to later claim US citizenship just because they're born there should be abolished. The intention behind that right is very noble, but I think it causes more problems than it solves. US immigration and naturalization policies are much too complicated.
Businesses and farms that exploit illegals should be punished severely. Illegals should be treated with dignity and respect; they would not risk their lives if NAFTA (and the US protecting its interests overseas) hadn't made life difficult for them. However, labourers entered the US before NAFTA, as well, so that isn't the whole problem.
People who want to immigrate should follow legal procedures - fill in applications, do the paperwork, pay the fees - just like everybody else from every other country.
Why the confusion? Legitimate immigrants -those who've done the required homework - must be vigorously protected from odious characters like Arpaio and his ilk, and their ridiculous xenophobic/bigoted/racist policies. The Arpaios ought to be jailed.
Did you know that in 1964 there was a work program between the USA and Mexico. Migrant workers were given papers to work in California farms during the harvest seasons. It worked pretty well. The migrants had some right protected by the government, but it did drive down labor costs to farmer in California.
Then that program was ended by LBJ and the problem has become worst and worst.
Give em a hearing, then send them back to the country of origin. If one is illegal, no amount of time cures that including the pilgrims. But, the North American continent was founded by conquest, something very different than illegal immigration.
Good Grief.
There is no "problem" with immigrants. It has all been whipped up by the worst elements in the society.
There is no "them."
" their right to later claim US citizenship just because they're born there should be abolished. The intention behind that right is very noble, but I think it causes more problems than it solves. US immigration and naturalization policies are much too complicated"
It may be complicated, but it is in the Constitution. If you are born here, you are a citizen. Noble or not, it is the law of the land. Congress cannot abolish that right: only a constitutional amendment can do that, and even in today's toxic climate, it would take many years to do that - so you should calm down and urge lawmakers to find a feasible solution to the immigration problem.
People wanting to immigrate do "follow legal procedures" as do most poor people to the best of their ability. The wealthy are the ones who are able to skirt the requirements enforced against the rest of us.
This "I have to suffer at the hands of an increasingly authoritarian regime favoring the rich and impoverishing the rest of us, and I am able to carve out a little life for myself, so the Hell with my less fortunate neighbor" thinking is an identification with the oppressor, and reflects a willingness to do the tyrant's bidding in the suppression and destruction of others. It is the devil's bargain, and it is a deal that is disproportionately available and relatively easy for people from a small demographic.
No rich person has any problem doing anything they like here regardless of where they were born. They can get "legal procedures" waived.
Can people truly not see how "legal procedures" has become a weapon in the hands of those who would destroy all of us?
How anyone can call for the full weight of the law - in the form of police state para-military round ups and detentions - being brought to bear against the most vulnerable and innocent among us when we are subject to a regime that routinely violates and ignores centuries of domestic and international law protecting human rights and precluding pre-emptive war, torture, detention, spying on the public, destroying commonly held public resources, and on and on is a mystery.
The Bill of Rights has been shredded and rendered completely inoperative, and yet people on a "progressive" board are calling for harsh measures against poor, desperate and illiterate brown people, and then denying that racism could possibly be involved in their vengeful and thuggish rants?
TWO AMERICAS: I would like to thank you for using your clear reasoning powers to relate the big picture on this subject. The world is a better place with persons like you in it. I have grown to really respect you and admire your posts. There are a few in the threads who have incredible BS detectors, and a wonderful grasp of language. They are the TRUE teachers in this forum, and you are undoubtedly one of those. Thank you for your patient efforts to raise the awareness of others.
Thanks you for the kind words. I much admire the work you do here.
am I not American because I was born here?
The angry little white boys will be deciding who does and who does not have a right to be here, who is and who is not an "American."
isn't it amazing how seemingly , as more and more self-appointed "i am a real american" types bite into and swallow the "national discourse" on immigration and "who's a real american" , americans themselves are REALIZING the very things that the famous poem said about Nazi Germany?
"first they came for the criminals...and I said nothing because I wasn't any of those...
then they came for the terrorists...and I said nothing because I wasn't any of those...
then they came for the immigrants and i said nothing because I was a good German".....
then they came ........".........
as americans find justifications :"the terrorists are coming....they are among us.....the russians are out to get us.....those immigrants are here to destroy us....."
their own justifications lead them ever deeper into BEING what nazi germany was........
how ironic....from the bastion of "freedom, justice and liberty"........
TEDDY: I noticed you went missing (concerts?) for a few weeks, and I'm glad to see you back. You often represent the voice of that humanity that transcends national borders. Thank you for your posts.
I see the unfolding of the poignant adage you quoted. It amazes me that people think history is something that "already happened." Due to the focus on a linear timeline, they enjoy the conceit that those things of the past are now done away with. They could never happen again. As a result, they don't recognize the new dictators or fascists, in part because the era and costumes have altered. Some of us DO see; and while I often note that there's a price to be paid for bearing witness to the Truth, what else can the enlightened soul do?
Teddy, in case you don't remember, the Nazi's aren't vilified in history for being hardasses about their border enforcement, but rather for spilling across OTHER countries borders.
Extreme illegal immigration, you might say...