One of the battle cries on the Great Immigration Debate is "if you're here legally then you have nothing to worry about."
Nothing can be further from the truth.
I can trace my family back to North Carolina in the 1790s. I can trace my family to pre-Civil War Texas. My forefathers were founders of Karnes County, TX. I have documented proof through birth certificates, marriage and U.S. Census records. There is no doubt about my ancestors. I am 100% USA citizen through "jus sanguinis" and "jus soli."
Thus I have established my citizenship through every means possible but naturalization and obviously I don't need naturalization.
So what do I have to worry about? For starters, through marriage, blood and God knows what else, I have Spanish surname and I'm dark skinned.
Anti-immigrants, under the guise of immigration reform, want give law enforcement officers the ability to check the immigration status of people if they have sufficient reason to suspect a person may be in the country illegally.
So who makes the call on when to make an immigration check? What is the criteria for delving deeper into a routine traffic stop turn into an immigration check?
Through my rights as a citizenship, I have certain obligations. I vote. I serve on juries. I registered for the draft. I pay taxes. In return for those obligations I ask only for a few rights; basically those rights I'm afforded under the Constitution of these United States.
So to answer the question, if I'm here legally what do I have to fear? For starters, if peace officers are empowered to check my legal status, do I have to constantly tense up every time I drive and a police pulls up next to me? Is a dark skinned man driving a nice car suspicious? What if it's a nice neighborhood? What if I'm driving around my own nice neighborhood in my nice car? Do I really want to constantly look over my shoulder for the overzealous cop?
To those on the inside looking out, it appears a clear cut situation: legal or illegal. It's not so simple. I'm happy with my skin, my country and my heritage. My loyalties to the United States are unquestioned. I know no other homeland. I trace my family back six generations to this great land. All I ask is that my right to live free without question or fear in my own homeland be respected.
Showing posts with label The Great Immigration Debate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label The Great Immigration Debate. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Friday, June 18, 2010
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:
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
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
Sunday, June 6, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
