Does this bother anyone?

[Anonymous]

"The discussion is about "illegal" immigrants."

No, this discussion is about children of illegal immigrants who are born in the US, which, under the law makes them legitimate citizens of the US.

People, including our ancestors, immigrate to the US because they believe they will have a better life and be able to give their children a better life. In addition to illegal immigrants having children in the US, there are countless numbers of people here legally but not permanently who arrange their stays so that they have their children here in order to gain citizenship for their children. Children adopted abroad by US citizens are automatically granted citizenship upon reaching US soil.

How can you blame people for wanting this? I know that I for one feel very lucky to have been born here. But, I certainly don't think that only those of us who had that good fortune should be able to live their dream.

[Anonymous]

In addition to illegal immigrants having children in the US, there are countless numbers of people here legally but not permanently who arrange their stays so that they have their children here in order to gain citizenship for their children.

I think this recent articles about just that such as Chinese coming for three months to have babies here and then go home have exacerbated the concern too. That just does not seem right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And people wonder why the schools are over crowded. Anchor babies, the new American Dream

Oh, please. Which schools in this area are overcrowded because of all the children of illegals taking up space. Exactly which ones are you talking about?

Eastern, Takoma Park, Blair, Kennedy, wheaton Oh let me guess, just because your school is all upper class, you think there are no other schools in the area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, don't you think that the Court that decided that the "well regulated militia" clause was meaningless could just as easily decide that the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause can be interpreted to mean the parents are legal residents? I mention the Second Amendment to forestall a response based on precedent, which we now know is only as binding as the Roberts Court feels like allowing it to be.

I guess these days that's a justifiable fear. But, something tells me that guys with names such as Scalia and Alito will find immigrant-bashing difficult and a black dude wouldn't want to screw with the 14th amendment (though that may be overly optimistic of the black dude in question). If I'm right, that decimates the right wing of the court.

Have you forgotten that the "black dude" is against affirmative action even though this is how he was able to attend college? Also, I do not agree with you about "guys with names" which end in vowels.

What evidence do you have that that is how he attended college?

Also, there are lots of legitimate opinions against affirmative action (I don't subscribe to them personally), so it's reasonable for folks, black and white, to hold legitimate opposition to them. To equate affirmative action with the 14th Amendment in terms of the relevance to black people is a bit absurd, given that the 14th Amendment ONLY guaranteed the legitimacy of their personhood and whatnot.

I am not equating AA with the 14th Amendment, you referred to the "black dude" and that he might not be that conservative toward illegal immigrants, presuably because he is a "black dude," and I am simply pointing out that this "black dude" benefitted from AA but now does not support AA. Also, I watched hearings and read about him when he was nominated.

Maureen Dowd, NY Times, 6/25/03, Op Ed.

It's impossible not to be disgusted at someone who could benefit so much from affirmative action and then pull up the ladder after himself. So maybe he is disgusted with his own great historic ingratitude.

When he switched from a Democrat to a conservative as a young man, he knew that he would be a hotter commodity in politics. But he also knew that it would bring him the scorn of blacks who deemed him a pawn of the white establishment -- people like Justice Thurgood Marshall, who ridiculed Clarence Thomas and others as ''goddamn black sellouts'' for benefiting from affirmative action and then denigrating it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, don't you think that the Court that decided that the "well regulated militia" clause was meaningless could just as easily decide that the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause can be interpreted to mean the parents are legal residents? I mention the Second Amendment to forestall a response based on precedent, which we now know is only as binding as the Roberts Court feels like allowing it to be.

I guess these days that's a justifiable fear. But, something tells me that guys with names such as Scalia and Alito will find immigrant-bashing difficult and a black dude wouldn't want to screw with the 14th amendment (though that may be overly optimistic of the black dude in question). If I'm right, that decimates the right wing of the court.

Have you forgotten that the "black dude" is against affirmative action even though this is how he was able to attend college? Also, I do not agree with you about "guys with names" which end in vowels.

What evidence do you have that that is how he attended college?

Also, there are lots of legitimate opinions against affirmative action (I don't subscribe to them personally), so it's reasonable for folks, black and white, to hold legitimate opposition to them. To equate affirmative action with the 14th Amendment in terms of the relevance to black people is a bit absurd, given that the 14th Amendment ONLY guaranteed the legitimacy of their personhood and whatnot.

I am not equating AA with the 14th Amendment, you referred to the "black dude" and that he might not be that conservative toward illegal immigrants, presuably because he is a "black dude," and I am simply pointing out that this "black dude" benefitted from AA but now does not support AA. Also, I watched hearings and read about him when he was nominated.

Maureen Dowd, NY Times, 6/25/03, Op Ed.

It's impossible not to be disgusted at someone who could benefit so much from affirmative action and then pull up the ladder after himself. So maybe he is disgusted with his own great historic ingratitude.

When he switched from a Democrat to a conservative as a young man, he knew that he would be a hotter commodity in politics. But he also knew that it would bring him the scorn of blacks who deemed him a pawn of the white establishment -- people like Justice Thurgood Marshall, who ridiculed Clarence Thomas and others as ''goddamn black sellouts'' for benefiting from affirmative action and then denigrating it.

First off, I wasn't the person who used the term "black dude", so try to follow the conversation.

Second off, the original argument was not simply that Thomas would be opposed to such legislation because he's a black guy who is liberal, but because of the assumption that a black judge, or blacks in general, would not be quick to mess with the 14th Amendment, given what it mean for the establishment of rights to blacks. It has nothing to do with the specific issue of immigration and more to do with a perception of the general sense of African-Americans toward the 14th Amendment.

Third, I'm not sure that Dowd is the one we want to go to on issues like this.

Fourth, you still have not offered ANY evidence that Thomas himself directly benefited from affirmative action. Again, just because you say something doesn't make it true.

[Anonymous]

I am a first generation American, born to immigrant parents who came here legally in the 1950s. If we keep allowing the anchor baby situation to continue, eventually those that would consider hopping the fence illegally will choose to stay home, as America will be no different for them, especially economically. We will have lots of unemployment, cut school budgets, and a health care system in tatters. In other words, what we have now, only much worse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that 1 in 12 babies are born to illegals, or that congress wants to abolish the automatic US citizenship that comes with those circumstances?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/11/hispanic.study/index.html?hpt=T2

How soon people forget that we are all children/decedents of immigrants. For the most part we are all better off than we would have been had our ancestors not come to this great nation. The overwhelming majority of immigrant people that I know today are good hard working people who have come to America for the same reasons as my ancestors. These are good and decent people who deserve to be respected and protected.

The discussion is about "illegal" immigrants. Yes, as John F. Kennedy entitled his book, "A Nation of Immigrants", all US citizens, other than Native Americans, immigrated. However, and this is the big difference, my ancestors entered the country legally. That makes all the difference because they did not break the law to come into this country.

We can then assume that you are not of Asian descent and your family was not prevented from emigrating to the U.S. by the Chinese Exclusion Act. The U.S. has had a long history of having unfair and biased immigration laws. Stating that your ancestors arrived in America legally means nothing more than saying they were the right shade.

[jsteele]

You all realize that there is really no such thing as an "anchor baby", correct? Yes, the right wing is really good at coming up with scary terms and popularizing them, but that doesn't mean there is any substance to it. The mere fact that a baby is an American citizen is meaningless for the parents' status. If the parents are illegal prior to the baby's birth, they are still illegal after it. The baby is no more an "anchor" than a styrofoam cup in the ocean. Parents of American-citizen babies get deported every day. According to the New York Times, in the ten-year period ending in 2007, more than 100,000 parents of American citizens were deported.

While the baby is a citizen and eligible to stay in the US, if the parents face deportation, they have to choose to either take the baby or leave it behind. Which choice do you believe they will make? The irony here is that if the parents take the baby with them, we actually end up deporting US citizens. The baby can't apply for his parents' immigration until he reaches the age of 21. So, anyone having a baby in order to become a legal resident is a really, really, long term thinker. It really defies logic to believe that there is a tidal wave of folks having babies in order to legally immigrate 21 years down the road. If someone wants to immigrate that bad, they could simply marry an American citizen.

It is really sad to see immigrants being demonized as such a threat to our country. I guess it is part and parcel of a bad economic situation -- people always are looking for scapegoats. But, the serious problems of this nations are not caused by undocumented workers. Illegal immigrants did get us involved in two foreign wars, they didn't cause the collapse of the financial industry, they weren't responsible for the neglect of our country's infrastructure, and they certainly weren't the ones who cut taxes while increasing spending and turned a record budget surplus in to a record budget deficit. It is not surprising that those who were actually responsible for these things are leading the charge against illegal immigrants. If I were them, I'd also be looking for scapegoats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And people wonder why the schools are over crowded. Anchor babies, the new American Dream

Bring them on. I don't want to throw any kids out. We need our workforce to keep growing and pay for my Social Security.

[Anonymous]

I thought America just did this to gain taxes from more people. When these children leave because their parents are deported, they still have to pay US taxes when they grow up - even if they never live here again.

[Anonymous]

The discussion is about "illegal" immigrants. Yes, as John F. Kennedy entitled his book, "A Nation of Immigrants", all US citizens, other than Native Americans, immigrated. However, and this is the big difference, my ancestors entered the country legally. That makes all the difference because they did not break the law to come into this country.

Well, some of my ancestors came over onthe Mayflower. I'm pretty sure the native americans they displaced thought they were illegal. I suppose it's all about perspective.

[Anonymous]

Parents of American-citizen babies get deported every day. According to the New York Times, in the ten-year period ending in 2007, more than 100,000 parents of American citizens were deported.

You make an eloquent point, however these deportations are miniscule when compared with the millions and millions of illegal immigrants who were not deported from 1997 to 2007.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Parents of American-citizen babies get deported every day. According to the New York Times, in the ten-year period ending in 2007, more than 100,000 parents of American citizens were deported.

You make an eloquent point, however these deportations are miniscule when compared with the millions and millions of illegal immigrants who were not deported from 1997 to 2007.

But, the fact that they were not deported had nothing to do with babies. The fact remains. "Anchor babies" do not exist.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:... The fact remains. "Anchor babies" do not exist.

Back when I was a single father with a 4-year-old I sure felt weighed down!

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, don't you think that the Court that decided that the "well regulated militia" clause was meaningless could just as easily decide that the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause can be interpreted to mean the parents are legal residents? I mention the Second Amendment to forestall a response based on precedent, which we now know is only as binding as the Roberts Court feels like allowing it to be.

I guess these days that's a justifiable fear. But, something tells me that guys with names such as Scalia and Alito will find immigrant-bashing difficult and a black dude wouldn't want to screw with the 14th amendment (though that may be overly optimistic of the black dude in question). If I'm right, that decimates the right wing of the court.

I have read PPs and prior to this reference (Jeff Steel responding to anonyous) to "black dude," I cannot find another. Also, if anyone else used this phrase to describe Clarence Thomas, you would be screaming racism.

Jeff is always right and Jeff is never wrong. Ah, I repeat myself.