Should the INS Act of 1965 be changed to end anchor baby births?

jamesrage · #1 (**permalink**) 05-25-2008, 11:01 PM

Should the immigration nationality act of 1965 be changed or repealed to end anchor baby births?

It is not a fool proof solution but how about repealing and or changing the immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that allows chain migration of individuals other than spouses and minor children.Before this chain migration was only used for minor children and spouses.This doesn't require a change in the constitution at all.Technically this would end future anchor baby births.ALthough there would still be illegal aliens popping out babies but those children would not be able to drag the whole entire family here to the US.

Anchor baby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anchor baby or jackpot baby are terms used to refer to a child born in the United States to illegal immigrants or other non-citizens. The terms refer to the role of an illegal alien's child, as a US citizen, in facilitating chain migration under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

dga · #2 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesrage

Should the immigration nationality act of 1965 be changed or repealed to end anchor baby births?

It is not a fool proof solution but how about repealing and or changing the immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 that allows chain migration of individuals other than spouses and minor children.Before this chain migration was only used for minor children and spouses.This doesn't require a change in the constitution at all.Technically this would end future anchor baby births.ALthough there would still be illegal aliens popping out babies but those children would not be able to drag the whole entire family here to the US.

Anchor baby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Anchor baby or jackpot baby are terms used to refer to a child born in the United States to illegal immigrants or other non-citizens. The terms refer to the role of an illegal alien's child, as a US citizen, in facilitating chain migration under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.

The fact that the term "anchor baby" has been determined perjorative, derogatory and dehumanizing (per your Wikipedia definition) should give you a clue,

Furthermore, there is no such thing as an "anchor baby". The fact that a child is American will not impede his illegal parents, siblings, or relatives being deported. That child can only extend legal status to his immediate relatives, i.e. parents and siblings, after the age of 21. In the case of siblings, the process takes about 12 to 15 years. In the case of the parents, they would first have to leave the country for 10 years - this is a mandatory penalty that would also apply to siblings illegally in the country - before even applying. Which means that the "anchor baby's" parents could probably apply for resident status by the time their son/daughter is 31 years old, and the siblings by the time he/she is in his forties. This just links right back to the "birthright citizenship" thread.

Mikeyy · #3 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 02:10 AM

Nah.....................

jamesrage · #4 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dga

The fact that the term "anchor baby" has been determined perjorative, derogatory and dehumanizing (per your Wikipedia definition) should give you a clue,

Of course pro-illegals are going to say the term is pejorative,derogatory or dehumanizing.It you notice the source for those claims are liberal pro-illegals newspapers.

Anchor baby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
. These terms have been characterized in the San Diego Union-Tribune as "pejorative"[1], in the New York Times as "derogatory"[2], and in the Chicago Tribune as dehumanizing.[3]

I could care less what a pro-illegal says about the term anchor baby.Pro-illegals also try to claim the term "illegals" or "illegal aliens" is pejorative,derogatory or dehumanizing.

Quote:

Furthermore, there is no such thing as an "anchor baby".

Yes there is.Read the article.That why I want to end the law that allows chain migration of relatives other than minor children or spouse.

Quote:

The fact that a child is American will not impede his illegal parents, siblings, or relatives being deported.

It still doesn't change the fact illegals give birth to children here in the US to facilitate future chain migration.

Quote:

That child can only extend legal status to his immediate relatives, i.e. parents and siblings, after the age of 21.

Thats part of why the child of an illegal is called a anchor baby.

Quote:

This just links right back to the "birthright citizenship" thread.

If we changed the INS act of 1965 to deny chain migration to relatives other than spouse and minor children it will not have an effect on birth right citizenship.This would be an easier approach than trying to change and or repeal the 14th amendment.

mlurp · #5 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 01:45 PM

I voted yes but for the act to be updated in its entirety. It is to old and we have far to many different problems with immigration today that we had then.
The debate is alive and very emotional. Maybe next year it will get proper attention with all the facts being addressed.
Not on emotion but on the truths/facts and the many problems each state has with it and how to deal with it.
I believe this is a National problem and therefore needs to delt with at that level not by each state or county.

But I see 3 votes for change. None for leaving it in place.

dga · #6 (**permalink**) 05-26-2008, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesrage

Of course pro-illegals are going to say the term is pejorative,derogatory or dehumanizing.It you notice the source for those claims are liberal pro-illegals newspapers.

Anchor baby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
. These terms have been characterized in the San Diego Union-Tribune as "pejorative"[1], in the New York Times as "derogatory"[2], and in the Chicago Tribune as dehumanizing.[3]

I could care less what a pro-illegal says about the term anchor baby.Pro-illegals also try to claim the term "illegals" or "illegal aliens" is pejorative,derogatory or dehumanizing.

Yes there is.Read the article.That why I want to end the law that allows chain migration of relatives other than minor children or spouse.

It still doesn't change the fact illegals give birth to children here in the US to facilitate future chain migration.

Thats part of why the child of an illegal is called a anchor baby.

If we changed the INS act of 1965 to deny chain migration to relatives other than spouse and minor children it will not have an effect on birth right citizenship.This would be an easier approach than trying to change and or repeal the 14th amendment.

If the New York Times is pro-illegal, then we're in serious trouble,

If at 21 you can still call a US citizen a baby, then that seems contradictory. And the amendment (according to the proposal) will include all citizens? Otherwise it would be discriminatory. If it is all inclusive, then you would be denying naturalized citizens the "benefit" of petitioning their parents and siblings which would be stupid - no offense.

saltwn · #7 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dga

If the New York Times is pro-illegal, then we're in serious trouble,

If at 21 you can still call a US citizen a baby, then that seems contradictory. And the amendment (according to the proposal) will include all citizens? Otherwise it would be discriminatory. If it is all inclusive, then you would be denying naturalized citizens the "benefit" of petitioning their parents and siblings which would be stupid - no offense.

Duh...yes the New York times is...how shall I say it delicately?
Biased/left-leaning/Petraeus hating/pro-illegal. And yes we are in serious trouble.
Other than that one statement, I won't argue your remarks here. I will post my thoughts on the thread.

saltwn · #8 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 12:04 AM

Yes, the act should be revised. I don't want to remove the right of a person born here to automatically be called a citizen, but his parents and yentas and mijas should petition separately.

dga · #9 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Duh...yes the New York times is...how shall I say it delicately?
Biased/left-leaning/Petraeus hating/pro-illegal. And yes we are in serious trouble.
Other than that one statement, I won't argue your remarks here. I will post my thoughts on the thread.

Well, since I'm a New Yorker (living in New Jersey), I guess that's why I don't see it that way. Hmmm... maybe that's my problem,

Maybe I should start tuning into FOX 5 News,

saltwn · #10 (**permalink**) 05-27-2008, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dga

Well, since I'm a New Yorker (living in New Jersey), I guess that's why I don't see it that way. Hmmm... maybe that's my problem,

Maybe I should start tuning into FOX 5 News,

You are correct, I believe. We often don't see bias that is right under our noses.
Case in point, I used to live in Houston, Texas and loved (still do) reading the Chronicle. After I left the area I realized The Chronicle's stories said things differently than the right leaning Houston Post.
Same thing with the N. Y. Times and (I believe it is called) the Washington Times.
Even Reader's Digest has a bias! their's is mostly a "don't rock the boat" stance, but still...
When you get a chance, go to a local library or online and review the headlines for major newspapers and you will soon see some have a very different take on a story than others. If you can archive the Clinton impeachment and stories on Iran Contra, I'll bet you will agree they are all pretty much biased one way or the other.
I do think ABC tries to remain neutral, but not on everything. Same with CBS.
Do I ever read the new York Times? Yes. Do I ever watch Fox News? Yes. But I take them and all other news organizations with a hefty poke of salt.

View Poll Results: Should the INS Act of 1965 be changed to end anchor baby births?
yes	8	80.00%
no	2	20.00%
Voters: 10. You may not vote on this poll

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to mlurp For This Useful Post:
saltwn

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
Michael1, mlurp

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
foundit66, mlurp