Quote:
Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson
For the record, I believe that preserving the familial bond of father, mother and child trumps our faulty interpretation of the Constitution.
It could not have been the intent of our founding fathers, or anyone after them to allow or even codify into law a procedure where the parents are deported but the child is technically legally required to stay in the U.S.
Does anyone think that our founding fathers and the scholars afterwards would consider the illegal immigrant to be guilty of "kidnapping" or some other obscure law prohibiting the transport of American citizens when the illegal immigrant takes their child with them?
Should the children of illegal immigrants be given passports so that when they leave with their parents, everything is "done the right way?"
Again, our interpretation of the Constitution must change.
A Constitutional Amendment is not necessary. A common sense approach to the immigration mess is.
If a minor is in the custody of an illegal immigrant, when the illegal immigrant goes, their "trophy" goes with them. It's their child, their responsibility. I think that the familial bond doesn't have to be broken, the parents (illegal aliens) have to leave and take their child/children with them. I think the citizenship status of the children should be based on the citizenship status of the parents; not where they are born.
|
ON another note....
I found this to be quite interesting. Until 1996 families "could have applied for permanent residence based on good moral character and seven continuous years of residence in the United States". "But on Sept. 30, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which changed the standards to 10 years of continuous residence and "exceptional" hardship that affected not the undocumented immigrants but relatives who are U.S. citizens or permanent residents".
I point this out because I remember a case from California where a Filipino family was ordered to leave the U.S. after being here for 19 years. The family had visitor visas that expired in 1986, then in 1996 they applied for permanent residence status (based on asylum). Then it was denied in 2000 and were told to leave the U.S; they appealed this and were denied in 2002. The case then went to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (in SF); and was denied. When the family came in 1984 they had three children all of which are now adults (they were each served notice to leave the country). Long story short the parents screwed up, 20 years later bit them and their children in the behind. They all ended up leaving and going back to the Philippines.
I found this story to be quite interesting because the children of the parents in this case were born in the Philippines (
not anchor babies), and brought here as toddlers. Their entire life has been here in the U.S. and was stripped away from them. From reading this story you know that the parents are dishonest about the situation when the children were old enough to question their citizenship status. I am wondering why the children didn't do anything of their own accord to become U.S. citizens; they did have enough common sense to question the parents, and obtain college degrees. Just shows a whole other side to the immigration issues in this country.
Here are the links for the story.
http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-07-0...ildren-parents
http://www.dreamactivist.org/blog/2008/10/21/bitterness-as-fremont-family-of-five-deported-to-philippines/