Struggling Iraq Vet's Wife to Be Deported

[AlHayatZween 2]

sorry, i was under the impression that if you were a woman here illegally and gave birth to a child on US soil, you couldn't get deported... is this not the case?

[scandal 951]

sorry, i was under the impression that if you were a woman here illegally and gave birth to a child on US soil, you couldn't get deported... is this not the case?

That's not correct. You can be deported. The USC child is not deportable, and the parents may choose whether it's best to have the child accompany the deported parent(s) out of the country or stay behind.

[AlHayatZween 2]

Oh... i see... thanks!

Then what is the whole anchor baby debate hoopla?

[scandal 951]

Oh... i see... thanks!

Then what is the whole anchor baby debate hoopla?

I don't know that there is a "hoopla" about anchor babies, other than amongst the noisy crowd that makes all sorts of alarmist hoopla.

A baby born on US soil is a USC, whether born to a mother legally or illegally in the US.

That USC is entitled to all the rights and benefits of all USCs. This includes the right to petition and sponsor family members for immigration benefits once he/she reaches 18.

Hence in theory a non-US couple may conspire to illegally enter the US and give birth to a child on US soil, all with the devious intent that two decades into the future this child will be able to sponsor them for legal status in the US. A bit far fetched, but no more so than the idea that our President was born in Kenya I suppose.

Anyway, there is no doubt that children who obtain US status via birth on US soil (itself a provision of the 14th amendment) can and do go on to confer US status to others later in life. Not neccessarily due to some sinister plot hatched by their parents, but just because people grow up and as adults do such things. I'm a textbook example - a USC by virtue of US birth to non-USC parents (who were in the US legally, I hasten to add), who upon reaching adulthood has now been able to confer US immigration benefits to 5 people (ex-wife, 3 kids, current wife).

I did a poll on this on expats, with the question being "Is Scandal an anchor baby?". I think the final vote tally had the majority saying 'yes'. I think even I voted yes. I don't have any problem with it. I've broken no laws, my parents broke no laws, I've simply availed myself of the provisions of US law, just as would any other US citizen.

[HAL 9000 96]

Indeed, the conspiracy has been documented. Previous policies from INS would state that family unity would be tried to be upheld in cases of illegals with USC babies where the parents had no criminal record beyond the statutory immigration violation of entering without inspection/valid visa/etc. Now we see that this has changed somewhat as Scandal has noted.

[Danno 1,228]

A baby born on US soil is a USC, whether born to a mother legally or illegally in the US.

That USC is entitled to all the rights and benefits of all USCs. This includes the right to petition and sponsor family members for immigration benefits once he/she reaches 18.

Hence in theory a non-US couple may conspire to illegally enter the US and give birth to a child on US soil, all with the devious intent that two decades into the future this child will be able to sponsor them for legal status in the US. A bit far fetched, but no more so than the idea that our President was born in Kenya I suppose.

(Just to stir the pot)

No one seemed to contest his country of birth before his presidential hopes were raised....as evidenced in this AP story.

http://web.archive.org/web/20040627142700/...ews26060403.htm

Kenyan-born Obama all set for US Senate

Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations.

The allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days have given Obama a clear lead as Republicans struggled to fetch an alternative.

Ryan’s campaign began to crumble on Monday following the release of embarrassing records from his divorce. In the records, his ex-wife, Boston Public actress Jeri Ryan, said her former husband took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans.

"It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," Ryan, 44, said in a statement. "What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign – the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play."

Although Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one ‘avant-garde’ club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable, lashed out at the media and said it was "truly outrageous" that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records.

The Republican choice will become an instant underdog in the campaign for the seat of retiring Republican Senator Peter Fitzgerald, since Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.

"I feel for him actually," Obama told a Chicago TV station. "What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody."

The Republican state committee must now choose a replacement for Ryan, who had won in the primaries against seven contenders. Its task is complicated by the fact that Obama holds a comfortable lead in the polls and is widely regarded as a rising Democratic star.

The chairwoman of the Illinois Republican Party, Judy Topinka, said at a news conference, after Ryan withdrew, that Republicans would probably take several weeks to settle on a new candidate.

"Obviously, this is a bad week for our party and our state," she said.

As recently as Thursday, spokesmen for the Ryan campaign still insisted that Ryan would remain in the race. Ryan had defended himself saying, "There’s no breaking of any laws. There’s no breaking of any marriage laws. There’s no breaking of the Ten Commandments anywhere."

—AP

Edited October 28, 2009 by Danno

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

There is a case currently where a divorced couple with a child have had deportation put off. I believe its being appealed at the moment. Basically the mother has primary custody and the father visitation. The previous ruling stated that if she were deported it would mean that the father would be unfairly limited in his ability to visit the child.