Thread: Question on Anchor babies

BlueJersey wrote

Malkin parents came to the U.S as visitor and got malkin in the U.S This is not right and if you tolerate this, then you shouldnt say a peep when chinnese visitors comes here under visit visa just to make sure their child are U.S citizens..Just because Malkin agrees with you, does not make it right..She's an anchor baby just like any illegal immigrant's children born in US land.

On Malkin, her father came to the US on a "temporary" worker visa..Not a green card..Malkin is a jock pot baby because because of her, the farther was able to process his work paper to get his green card and didnt have to go back to asia.

In the 1960's-70's, the United States recruited a large number of physicians and other health care professionals from other nations, particularly Philippines and India, with the intent that many of them would stay in the US. They may have come on a temporary visa, but the assumption was that many of them intended to adjust status and become US citizens. You have no valid argument here unless you can provide evidence of intent to subvert the law.

Originally Posted by BlueJersey

The Democrats will have to agree to give you a vote to abolishthe 14th amendment and you know this wont happen, not for a million years.You will need Pelosi support to pass such a law and i doubt you will get it.

Pelosi could be out of power in two years, not a million years.

On Malkin, her father came to the US on a "temporary" worker visa..Not a green card..Malkin is a jock pot baby because because of her, the farther was able to process his work paper to get his green card and didnt have to go back to asia.

Most "temporary workers" end up getting green cards, not because they have "jackpot babies", but because the US thinks they would make a valuable contribution. Which indeed Michelle's parents have. Some "temporary workers" prefer to go home, and even though they don't want US citizenship for their US born babies, the US forces it on them!! It's insane!!

Now, do you agree that any immigrant under a temporary work permit should be allow to bring their pregant wife along and make sure the child has US citizenship so they wont have o go back to their country?...

No, I think we should stop giving birthright citizenship to everyone except those whose parents are US citizens or legal permanent residents. Then it won't matter if a guest worker brings along his pregnant wife. I also think we should stop letting illegal aliens who marry US citizens adjust their status, since like you they are not patriotic Americans.

.You have to be fair here, malkin is an anchor baby.

Only illegal aliens have anchor babies. Michelle's parents were not illegals.

Originally Posted by Chris13

I have a question about Michelle Malkin. She claims to be against anchor babies, but she is one herself....

"Malkin was born Michelle Maglalang in Philadelphia to Filipino parents, Dr. Apolo and Rafaela Maglalang, in the United States on a work visa

I dont understand how can she argue about this?! I find it weird that she is so against them when she was born an anchor baby, why is her situation different?!

I often wondered why children of Foreign Diplomats can't be automatic citizens when any spinach pickers kid automatically becomes one. I read somewhere that Asians are taking vacations according to their pregnancy due dates, so their child can be born in American and be American citizens.

I think America should change the laws that an anchor baby must have one legal citizen parent to become and American citizen. Anchor babies are one of the biggest drains on our social services. Why can’t our government see the illegal aliens are blood letting us?

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... tizen.html

Excerpt:

The 14th Amendment makes no mention of illegal immigration, so whether it applies to children of undocumented immigrants such as the Floreses is up for debate. Congress and the states approved the amendment in 1868, primarily to give citizenship to freed slaves following the Civil War.

It states in part, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States."

For over 100 years, that sentence has been interpreted by the courts to mean that all children born on U.S. soil are automatically citizens, except the children of foreign diplomats.

As a result, most lawmakers and legal experts have believed ending birthright citizenship would require amending the Constitution, a nearly impossible task because it would require a two-thirds vote by both the Senate and House and then approval by three-fourths of the states.

But some House Republicans say amending the Constitution may not be necessary to end birthright citizenship. They suggest the 14th Amendment was never intended to apply to the children of undocumented immigrants and, therefore, birthright citizenship could be ended through legislation.

Originally Posted by legal4mykidsfuture

Thank You, Crocket, you are truly a walking encyclopedia of legal and practical knowledge, and perhaps the greatest resource on these boards.

ditto.