The Great Immigration Debate: Anchor Baby Myth

The Propaganda
Propaganda inciting fear is a powerful weapon to mold public sentiment. Radical Muslims use fear and portray Israel and the United States as evil entities out to destroy Islam. It's a very effective tool. Propaganda also creates a distraction a government to disillusion the population so they won't see the squalor they live in. North Korea is the prime example. The Dear Leader,Kim Jong-il, and his regime blame the ills on the West. Kim and his repressive regime bares responsibility for the isolation but he created a myth and deflects his shortcomings with visions of American and South Korean troops at the border ready to invade.

One of the rallying points for the anti-immigration reform advocates perpetuates the myth of the so called "anchor babies." They claim people cross into the United States in order to have children. By U.S. law, anyone born on American soil is automatically a citizen. To hear the anti-immigration advocates tell it, people are crawling over the border at all points just to have babies. Once they have the children, they claim the families cannot be deported due to the citizenship of the children. Thus the illegal immigrants have created an "anchor" in the United States.

The Facts
Fact number one that isn't told is that having a child that is an American citizen doesn't stop deportation proceedings. A family with minor children citizens can all, including the children, be deported. There is nothing anchoring the family to the U.S.

The second fact relates to immigrating to the United States for the parents. As a minor, the child cannot sponsor family members for residency or citizenship. Just as any other American child, they cannot sign a legally binding document. So there is no way they can petition for citizenship for their parents.

Once the child has become an adult citizen there are still barriers to parental citizenship. Since the parents are in the U.S. illegally, they cannot apply for a green card or start the citizenship process. The literally have to leave the country and apply at a U.S. consulate. If the consulate determines that the parents has been in the United States for more than a year a ten year ban from the U.S. kicks in.

Even if the parents pass all the legal sniff tests, financial barriers still prevent them from becoming U.S. citizens. Just having an adult child over 21 does not allow parents to immigrate free and clear. Their adult offspring must prove they can support the family financially. The minimum income requirement in 2009 was almost $23,000 per year.

The Possible Legal Fallacy
I'm not a lawyer. So this section is me just trying to use logic to follow an argument made against anchor babies.

I link to a a post on a Sean Hannity message board. Whether Hannity is affiliated with the board or not is of no consequence. What's important is the argument is posted there and the link : Glenn Beck’s immigrant guest unknowingly perpetuates progressive’s anchor baby myth. One other interesting note about the post, I'm not sure the original source of the argument. I found it on many websites and the webmasters/authors are passing it off as their own analysis.

The argument begins with a quote from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution:

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.

I highlighted the line in the amendment that is the linchpin to the argument. They claim that babies born in the United States gain automatic citizenship because they don't fall under the jurisdiction of the United States.

I find fault in the jurisdiction argument. Part of the definition of legal jurisdiction states that a person falls under the laws of the governing entity. I don't care who you are, where you are and what you are doing, but unless you have diplomatic immunity you are subject to laws of the country you are in. If illegal immigrants didn't fall under the jurisdiction of the United States then how are they illegal? If a tourist commits murder are they not subject to the jurisdiction of America law enforcement and the criminal justice system?

When a person enters a foreign country they fall under jurisdiction of that country's laws. To me it's not a valid argument. Short of a constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court decision, I don't see this path to citizenship changing.

Conclusion
Like I said in my intro to The Great Immigration Debate, I want to look at both sides of the issues and try to formulate a pragmatic solution. That solution will require compromise and will not satisfy everyone involved.

Today I delved into the anchor baby question not to counter the argument entirely but to try and understand the points made in it. In my research, I found the anchor baby argument to be propaganda and a myth. The fact is babies aren't a path to citizenship and when they get older it isn't a very efficient path to citizenship.

What it boils down to is the anchor baby myth is a propaganda tool to instill fear in the United States and a play to achieve political aims.

Source: The Anchor Baby Myth from Scott and Associates, Attorneys at Law

No More BFF?

Those geniuses of social engineering are at it again. Today I introduce you to a New York Times article entitled "A Best Friend? You Must Be Kidding." The article starts off with the idea that some think having a best friend at a young age is outdated or romantically over thought of. Basically the advocates of more friendships feel that having one best friend is a detriment to a child's upbringing.

Quoting directly from the article:

But increasingly, some educators and other professionals who work with children are asking a question that might surprise their parents: Should a child really have a best friend?

“Parents sometimes say Johnny needs that one special friend,” she continued. “We say he doesn’t need a best friend.”

The writer for the story correctly points out this concept is a "manifestation" of how educators, parents and other adults want to micromanage all aspects of a kid's life.

What the new theorist want if for kids to have clusters of friend and not just one close best friend. They argue further than having one friend can lead to cliques, exclusivity and bullying.

Even schools are getting in on the act. If they see two kids gravitating to each other they might intervene and encourage them to sit with someone else at lunch or play on different sports teams at PE.

Reflecting back on my school years, I did have a best friend growing up in the neighborhood. We separated as best friends due to age difference. I was one year older so I started middle school a year before him. By the end of the school year I had a new clique of friends. I still hung out with my best friend from neighborhood. By high school we had formed very different groups of friends. We didn't have a fight or a fallen out. We both grew up and found bigger groups of friends with similar interest. In high school, his peers were partying skirt chasers and of course typical teen stuff too. My clan was more homebodies that watch movies, went to football games and did outdoors stuff like fishing and camping. We had girlfriends but weren't the skirt chasers my old friend's group was.

So yes there were two cliques but we remained good friends all through school.

Even in my group of high school buddies there was a dynamic to the group. As a whole we were all friends, hung out, had lunch together and did a lot as a group. Within that group there were smaller groups of two, three or four friends that hung out more than with others in the group. I had my best friend Mike. We hung out most the time but there would be times where he hung out with other guys in the group and I would too.

Guess what, helicopter parents with play dates, and child experts that want social engineer kids friends, there is no need to. We had plenty of cliques, groups within the cliques and so forth with no major problems. That's call learning to socialize and make friends.

Helicopter parents and child social engineers don't want children to feel rejection, or reduce the feeling of rejection if they have a larger group of friends but no one best friend. I think it's a bad idea. That special best friend bond helps a child develop some useful adulthood tool like how to form strong individual bonds. It gives a foundation to build on when they group up and have more chances to form individual bonds. Sure kids will get rejected or hurt but why wait until adulthood to feel it when you can learn it as a child and not be blindsided by new feelings.

Instead, children need to develop these skills for use in later life. When they get in the real world rejection will come in job interviews, date, romantic interests and bad friends. If you don't expose them to it now and learn how to cope, you are holding back a maturing process.

The Great Immigration Debate

I've been quiet on the topic for several reasons. First, the immigration subject riles to many emotions in people. Just what to call illegal immigrants gets blood boiling. Some opt for the politically correct "undocumented workers" over the more correct illegal immigrants. The issue is also very complex. People for and against immigration paint the issue in black and white. The "I'm right, you're wrong" syndrome that stifles open debate applies to immigration too. I doubt a real working solution will ever come about due the closed minded people on both sides.

A pragmatic solution that incorporates illegal aliens already here while securing the border is fundamental. Despite what extremist think, those illegals here will not be rounded up and deported. The cost of a round up operation runs into the billions of dollars. You might as well scratch a round up off the board. On the other hand, a tightly secured border is essential. Border security must tighten up and make any crossing attempt extremely difficult to manage.

After spending a while thinking about it, I will examine the situation and look at both sides. I will even offer some ideas of tenable solution. I will not please everyone and will definitely enrage both sides if anyone actually reads my posts. But I am willing to take a shot at this.

It's not easy but I've spent some time on it and hope that eventually a permanent solution, the right one at that, will eventually come to fruition.

U.N. Investigator Thinks U.S. Drones Might Be Illegal

So a U.N. expert claims that U.S. use of drones to take out Al Qaida might be illegal? I have an answer for him. I don't care what he thinks.

The U.N. investigator, Philip Alston, claims that the CIA use might not fall under the rules of war and to many civilians are killed in the attacks.

In case Mr. Alston hasn't notices this isn't a conventional war. Terrorists don't wear uniforms. They hide among civilians. They don't attack military targets. They kill innocent civilians and hide like the cowards that they are. They don't have the balls to come out into the open. When they are discovered, a fast and efficient method is used to kill them. These terrorists are plotting and planning to kill. They want nothing else than to kill and impose their twisted sense of religion on people. There is nothing conventional about them. Unconventional enemies call for unconventional tactics.

Alston further states that CIA personnel may face extradition to the countries where the drone attacks occur. My counter to that is a state has to be willing to extradite a citizen to another country for trial. The U.S. government simply isn't going to send any CIA agent overseas to stand trial for actions that the government sanctions. I'm not sure if the concept of sovereign immunity applies in this case. No matter the U.S. would have to agree to any extradition. As an example, England asked for extradition for the suspect in the death of Alexander Litvinenko. Russia refused and case closed.

Also the implications within the intelligence community would be devastating. Who would want to work for a government that is going turn over its own agents that followed their marching orders? The Nuremberg trials rendered the "I was just following orders" defense invalid. But let's face it, Nuremberg was victor's justice. The winners of the war decided the rules of trial. The same concept applies somewhat here. The U.S. is obviously a powerful nation and as such is using its might to defend itself and make up the rules on how to do it. When was the last
time Israel turned over a Mossad agent for trial? How many times did the Soviets turn over a KGB agent for trial? The British? Never happened and never will.

So thanks for playing Mr. Alston but your report, the U.N. or anyone else
won't alter way the U.S. is defending itself and wiping enemies off the
face of the earth.