Thread: If and when deportation arrives deport the women first

Absolutly deport them first....but you know they never will. When I lived in Florida, I think it was the Salvation Army or something like that, that gave cash cards to needy children for school clothes and basic supplies. I know for a fact very little if any went for the kids. Alot were FAR from needy. You don't have an endless supply of diamond studded gold chains and rings etc. when your poor. They were always crowded around the jewlery dept. and not just "wish" shopping. They were total heathens in the grogery store and they grabbed whatever they could. Cuts of meat by the armloads that I haven't tasted in years. It wouldn't have bothered me if it weren't for the food card, meaning my tax dollars paying for things I could never afford.

I really don't know what on earth happened. I remember the big push to get everyone off of welfare. The time limit people were allowed so they wouldn't have 1 baby after another in order to keep getting it. Then "bam" overnight you didn't need to be a "single" woman with a child anymore. There's been no pressure to find the father and get him to pay support. It's like they emptied the blacks and whites out and quadrupled the amount with hispanics and just opened up the wallet and did away with any rules. I've never seen anything like it and frankly it ticks me off.

Posted: Sun May 14, 2006 11:43 am Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Was I an anchor baby? Other folks in another chat area accuse me of being such and call me a hypocrite. I would like your take. Here's the deal:

My birth mother, a Canadian citizen, was 14 when she became pregnant with me. Because of the stigma of illigitimacy at the time (mid 1960's) her parents arranged for her to come to a highly regarded U.S. "unwed mothers home" for the duration of her pregnancy, one that would place the baby in a loving home that had been carefully screened.

I ended up with the most loving, supportive parents on the planet while my birth mother (I assume) returned to Canada to resume her trip to adulthood.

I was born in September and the adoption was finalized two months later, in November. Knowing what I know now, I can only assume the process was expedited because I was, for all intents and purposes, a U.S. citizen, simply because I was born here.

Your thoughts

Just my own opinion, but no. I don't consider any child adopted by American citizens "anchor" babies. I don't see how the situation is even close.

I was born in September and the adoption was finalized two months later, in November. Knowing what I know now, I can only assume the process was expedited because I was, for all intents and purposes, a U.S. citizen, simply because I was born here.

Your thoughts?

An anchor baby is used by illegal parents to anchor them to the country through citizenship of the baby. Your mother went back to Canada, so I agree with crazybird, that term just doesn't apply to you.

Your mother was doing what she thought was best for you, I'm sure. And it turned out to be the right decision as you indicated.

Originally Posted by greyparrot

Was I an anchor baby? Other folks in another chat area accuse me of being such and call me a hypocrite. I would like your take. <snip>
I was born in September and the adoption was finalized two months later, in November. Knowing what I know now, I can only assume the process was expedited because I was, for all intents and purposes, a U.S. citizen, simply because I was born here. Your thoughts?

No way. You're not a hypocrite. Americans are allowed to adopt children born in other countries. Your being born here and then adopted would not make a bit of difference. Changing the anchor baby loophole won't affect you in the least. And even for the adult anchor babies, we would have to make some sort of sensible guidelines. Passing a retractive law for all the minors shouldn't be impossible. The devil's in the details though.

The devils in the details. Boy you got that right! Send 'em ALL home though! And if they have been here long enough to obtain college degrees, they should be smart enough to create their own jobs in Mexico!!

MopheadBlue - I can relate to your story. When my husband worked at a big firm in Phoenix, every Christmas they would "sponsor families". So these "needy families" would send in requests for christmas gifts. But the requests were not for necessities, or grocery gift cards...it was for expensive video games (meaning they owned the playstation or whatever), DVD player, (meaning they owned a tv), and another was for an XM satellite thing for a car (meaning they owned a car). So, they have a tv, car and a recent video game player. Doesn't sound like a needy family to me. We did not contribute. I would have if the requests were for clothes, food stuffs, bedding and other necessities. BTW, the family was hispanic, I don't know if they were legal or not.

I know alot of these people are uneducated, but they are BRILLIANT at ripping off hard working american citizens.

If i am correct in my assumption and readings the US constitution grants only citizen status to children of immigrants born here only if the parents are Either ' citizens born here or or immigrants who have gone through the processes of becomming citizens who have sworn alliegence to the united states and claim no other country to be citizens of. The only time citizenship was granted in the constitution was in the cases of "negro slaves" after or during the civil war. Recent reading forgot where if i find it i will share it..
And i would assume that if you are adopted and your adoptive parents are citizens then you automatically are entitled to US citizenship.
i believe it was

Here is the fourteenth amendment

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Important to mention in section 1 are the words
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof:

Illegal Imigrants are not subject to the jurisidiction of the united states,
they are mexican citizens subject to mexican law. because they have not taken the OATH OF citizenship in the USA...... but this is where everyone gets mixed up !!

our constitutuion is very clear !!!
Steven Doherty A Legal American Citizen

Thank you, Steven, for sharing the entirety of the 14th Amendment with us. It is like a swallow of fresh clean water to me seeing chuncks of the Constitution pasted here on the forums, as lack of understanding by many has always been my chief complaint. What a tremendous service! Perhaps I may download the entire Constitution and put it on my own website as well! It's definitely needed, especially since President Bush called it a "blankity blank piece of paper" (His quote is ON the record by aides who confirmed he literally said it with the expletive during a cabinet meeting when there were complaints over some entries in the Patriot Act II)

DEPORT THE PREGNANT WOMEN FIRST----DO NOT ALLOW ANYMORE ANCHOR BABIES--

That's the problem with increasing the number of visas and giving out spouse visas. They get over here and pop out an anchor baby.

We can not allow a new form of illegal immigration.

Dixie