Anchors Away?
Before all you nautical nerds yell at me, I know the correct phrase is "anchors aweigh."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchors_Aweigh
Anyway......
Lately there has been a lot of talk about the new Arizona 'immigration laws' and all that they entail. One of the latest arguments is the question of whether or not "anchor babies" should be denied naturalized status despite being born here.
"Lemme splain, no, that would take too long, lemme sum up..." Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride.
An "anchor baby" is what people refer to as a child born to illegal immigrant parents but by the virtue of being born on US soil the child is a natural born American citizen and the parents are typically allowed to stay for the sake of "keeping families together."
In the past, an anchor baby was the road to citizenship. I was one of those anchor babies... my parents' legal status notwithstanding, (and I am NOT saying that they had me solely for that reason) the fact is that if you had a child here in the 70's, after a certain amount of time you were allowed to apply for citizenship and were rarely denied. Immigration laws in general were pretty lax in those days, and this was just one loophole. Getting married with an American, which you can still do, is still common practice. But no longer can you claim citizenship because your child is an American. Especially if you are illegal! Now I think the rule is that the child is an American with all the rights afforded all Americans, BUT, the parents have to leave. They can take the child with them, or leave him/her with relatives legally here. If they take the child back 'home', the child can return on his/her own with full citizenship status when they are 18. Don't quote that, I just think it's like 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. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.
Republicans in Arizona have recently made a push for a law that would deny an 'anchor baby' his American Citizen status because they were born under false pretenses. (their parents being here illegally and by that logic the child should have never been born here)
Also, not all countries offer automatic citizenship by birth.
And until the 14th amendment was adopted and written into the Constitution, it was not offered here.
The 14th Amendment starts off like this....
"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...."
It was written to offer former slaves born in the USA full citizenship status.
Those are the Republicans arguments.... I actually have no opinion on the matter right now, I am more interested what everyone else thinks and more importantly, why they feel that way. PLEASE LEAVE RACISM OUT OF IT! That is not a valid argument.
I have a cousin, she is Ecuadorian. Her two daughters were born here. In my opinion, she was smart. When she got pregnant she applied for a visa to come visit the US. It was granted and she flew here 8-9 months pregnant. Her daughter was born an American. When her visa was up, she went back home. After some years, she became pregnant again. Once again, she came here to have her baby. On a personal level, I think she has given her 2 daughters the greatest gift on this planet. So for her, and them, I am glad.
Here is where the slope gets slippery. Article II, Section 5 of the Constitution requires that the President MUST be a Natural Born Citizen. The purpose for this being that the President's allegiance can never be questioned.
Now, my cousin's daughters were born here and are American citizens but for all intents and purposes, they are Ecuadorian. That is all they know, that is where they grew up, that is where all their friends and family are. (not including 'distant' cousins like me) If they were to rise to the office of the President of the United States of America, assuming they came here and made that their goal, where would their allegiance be? I personally believe that in matters concerning Ecuador at least, they would be Ecuadorian first.
Enter Barack Obama. Many dispute whether or not he actually was born on US soil. Is his allegiance first to America? Would he die for it? I personally also doubt this.
I want to know what you folks believe... please comment.
Do you agree or disagree that we should deny 'anchor babies' their American citizenship status.
