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.
Gubment cheese stinks!
Junior, your liberal kook friend who shall remain nameless constantly proclaims that he is NOT a 'liberal' or 'democrat'. Instead he claims he is, for lack of a better term, a moralist! He even says that he has no affiliation and does not put himself in any group or political party. Instead he just keeps attacking what he calls 'the Elites'.
I say they are all Comunistas, VIVA FIDEL!!! VIVA CHE!!!!
Put simply that is all they are, it is all the same philosophy.... There is a big debate going on with all the liberal vs. conservative pundits on whether or not Obama is a Socialist. Conservatives claim that Obama's policies and actions define socialism and Liberals just denounce any of that talk as racist (instead of arguing on the merits.)
I SAY, huevos! All the semantics of what they call themselves... liberals, democrats, progressives, socialists, communists, fascists, oh wait, no one calls themselves a fascist anymore although let me assure you it is a leftist ideal.
Bull caca! I call them all Communists. that IS what they are. For a more all-encompassing definition use the term leftist. They all mean the same thing, the Robin Hood theory of take from the rich and give to the poor.
Commies don't like us, conservatives, because when they try to rationalize how we can be "against" the poor and the needy they can't come up with anything but that we are evil and uncaring. The problem is in how THEY view their stance. Obviously we are not "against" the poor and needy. Of course we are NOT Pro War, that's just stupid! What they don't see is what we do, the method of solving these problems and like we always say, it isn't perfect but it's the best system there is.. FREEDOM. Not freedom from bondage like slaves which is all they can comprehend, but freedom to decide for oneself where their life leads them and not attached or beholden to another's ideal or life path. Freedom to BE POOR!!! Now, liberals ask right now, "Who the hell would CHOOSE to be poor!? Damn Chino is dumb." People choose it everyday! They can't hold down a job, spend what they make on beer and partying. Refuse to learn a skill that can keep them employed, I know some that refuse to learn ENGLISH!!!! Come on, we all know that slacker that calls in sick because he got drunk the night before and has a hangover therefore he is too sick to come to work!
Well, let's not give the power to the COMMIES to define the conversation and make it about nomenclature! Let's talk about what works and what doesn't! Leftist ideas have NEVER worked in the history of the world!!! In fact, not only have they not worked, but they have given birth to some of the most evil dictators this planet has ever known!!! Our system was tried only once, and guess what, it worked! Now dumb ass commies are slowly trying to bring us back to 1984 and succeeding, all in the name of morality!
Mexican Teen Shot at The Border
Boy, this just keeps getting better and better...
So, in order to raise awareness of the potential evil that is going to come from new immigrations laws, the media brings us a story of a Mexican teenager who was shot dead at the US-Mexican border.
The Mexican Foreign Ministry said "Using firearms to respond to an attack with rocks is a disproportionate use of force, particularly coming from officials that are specially trained." WHAT?!?! Read what you write please... "P-a-r-t-i-c-ularly coming from officials that are specially trained." So, were they expecting the Border Patrol agents to retaliate with ROCKS?!?!
A few thoughts... First and foremost, these agents are risking their lives out there. Call it a paid job all you want, but the border between the US and Mexico has got to be a friggin scary place. You couldn't pay me enough to be there and I am sure, neither are many of you out there.
Two - Most of the human trafficking takes place at night. If I am on the border and it's dark and a rock hits me and there are potentially hundreds of undocumented people, who are willfully breaking American law, coming my way... I'm gonna FIRE!!
Third - This kid's mom wants the agent punished! "I want him punished," she said. "He's destroyed my life and left me with nothing." I did feel for the mom when she said this, but parents must get to a point when they are realists over parents. THIS KID, Sergio Hernandez, WAS A KNOWN SMUGGLER!!
Fourth - Because I know someone is bound to say, "how do you know he was a smuggler?". Okay... FINE, he was an alter boy who attended church every Sunday. HE - WAS - COMING - INTO - THE - UNITED STATES - ILLEGALLY!! If you come into my house, and you don't announce who you are and you know you are breaking the law by entering my house without my permission, should I take you out, or should I try talking to you first and then maybe throw a few rocks at you?
Fifth - an unidentified witness... I'm going to go out on a limb here and say he was unidentified because of his legal status, said that they "were not carrying anything. They weren't carrying weapons, packages, backpacks, only the clothes they were wearing, that's it." And the Border Patrol Agent would know this how? If you enter someone's house to rob them, and you only have the clothes you are wearing, on... does that make you any less guilty?
Finally, you can hate our country and me, but I remain firm in my stance that the safety of our agents should not be subordinated in order to preserve face with Felipe Calderon!
LA Unified School Board “SB1070 is UN-AMERICAN?!?!?”
Whew! So happy my kids are not in the LA school system. Their Unified School Board has decided that they are going to teach school kids that the Arizona Immigration Law is "UN-AMERICAN!!" They are equating it to slavery, internment camps for Japanese Americans and Antisemitism?!?! What is happening to our country?
Arizona Immigration v. Mexican Law
So, it's been a little bit since SB 1070 was passed in AZ. It was interesting to see the backlash this issue caused. Since then, I'm sure we've all read many blogs, articles, editorials, etc. on the law itself and the controversy regarding possible racial profiling.
Well... if you think Governor Brewer is a "meanie", I encourage to keep reading and see what Mexico's Immigration Law looks like. Call me a racial profiler if you like, but can we all at least agree that the influx of undocumented people entering the US, is primarily Mexican? Is that overstepping some lines? Will it become too much of an encumbrance to ask citizens who are driving, to carry with them a state issued driver's license? Are papers too heavy? Did everyone miss the part about federal law permitting agents to ask for proof of legal status without first executing a lawful transaction? Let's move on...
The following is a translated although accurate interpretation of the both Mexico's Ley General de Poblacion or General Population Law (read it straight from Mexico's Congress site http://www.diputados.gob.mx/LeyesBiblio/pdf/140.pdf unless you think it's unfair of me to ask you to do this). You think Arizona's Immigration Law is a burden? Read on and tell me if you don't agree that if we enacted Mexico's laws in the US, we would not have this problem to begin with? I mean if you go to Mexico you could be barred from the country if your presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics." How's that for profiling?!?!!?!
Mexico’s Immigration Law (General Law on Population) 1999
Mexico welcomes only foreigners who will be useful to Mexican society:
- Foreigners are admitted into Mexico “according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32)
- Immigration officials must “ensure” that “immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance” and for their dependents. (Article 34)
- Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets “the equilibrium of the national demographics,” when foreigners are deemed detrimental to “economic or national interests,” when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37)
- The Secretary of Governance may “suspend or prohibit the admission of foreigners when he determines it to be in the national interest.” (Article 38)
• Mexican authorities must keep track of every single person in the country:
- Federal, local and municipal police must cooperate with federal immigration authorities upon request, i.e., to assist in the arrests of illegal immigrants. (Article 73)
- A National Population Registry keeps track of “every single individual who comprises the population of the country,” and verifies each individual’s identity. (Articles 85 and 86)
- A national Catalog of Foreigners tracks foreign tourists and immigrants (Article 87), and assigns each individual with a unique tracking number (Article 91).
• Foreigners with fake papers, or who enter the country under false pretenses, may be imprisoned:
- Foreigners with fake immigration papers may be fined or imprisoned. (Article 116)
- Foreigners who sign government documents “with a signature that is false or different from that which he normally uses” are subject to fine and imprisonment. (Article 116)
• Foreigners who fail to obey the rules will be fined, deported, and/or imprisoned as felons:
- Foreigners who fail to obey a deportation order are to be punished. (Article 117)
- Foreigners who are deported from Mexico and attempt to re-enter the country without authorization can be imprisoned for up to 10 years. (Article 118)
- Foreigners who violate the terms of their visa may be sentenced to up to six years in prison (Articles 119, 120 and 121). Foreigners who misrepresent the terms of their visa while in Mexico — such as working with out a permit — can also be imprisoned.
• Under Mexican law, illegal immigration is a felony. The General Law on Population says,
- “A penalty of up to two years in prison and a fine of three hundred to five thousand pesos will be imposed on the foreigner who enters the country illegally.” (Article 123)
- Foreigners with legal immigration problems may be deported from Mexico instead of being imprisoned. (Article 125)
- Foreigners who “attempt against national sovereignty or security” will be deported. (Article 126)
• Mexicans who help illegal aliens enter the country are themselves considered criminals under the law:
- A Mexican who marries a foreigner with the sole objective of helping the foreigner live in the country is subject to up to five years in prison. (Article 127)
- Shipping and airline companies that bring undocumented foreigners into Mexico will be fined. (Article 132)
From MEXICO’S CONSTITUTION (http://factreal.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/mexicoconstitution2008.pdf):
• The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country’s political life.
Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, “only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country.” Article 33 is unambiguous: “Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country.”
• The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners.
If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast.
Article 27 states, “Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country.” (Emphasis added)
• The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal
ones, in the public sector.
“Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces.” (Article 32)
• The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized.
Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:
“In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic.”
• An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.
• Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).
• The president of Mexico must be a Mexican citizen by birth AND his parents must also be Mexican-born citizens (Article 82), thus giving secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.
• The Mexican constitution singles out “undesirable aliens.” Article 11 guarantees federal protection against “undesirable aliens resident in the country.”
• The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen’s arrests.
Article 16 states, “in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities.” Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.
• The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process.
According to Article 33, “the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action.”