Illegal immigrant parents might have to leave disabled toddler

[almaty 19]

i broke 2 ribs and almost lost an eye..i am blaming it on the illegals ...

also, gas went up here today..again it is the illegals fault

[Fandango 1,440]

Good lord.

What difference does it make if that child is born to EWI parents, or USC's, or Martians for that matter?

To say children, of any variety, are "running up a huge bill for the taxpayer" is downright cold.

Ok, Becca...you pay for it then!

when I was drastically ill & ran up a bill of close to $1million, the govt didn't help me one bit, because I 'didn't qualify for assistance'

how's THAT for cold?

[almaty 19]

well, we spend $12 billion a month in iraq..i don't feel any safer ..

[Dr_LHA 3]

Jeez yes! The current policy of having a child born on US soil and automatically becoming a citizen is one of many things that need to be changed.

No, it doesn't.

This is not the "current policy", the right of a person born in the USA to be considered a US citizen is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution as ratified in 1868.

The "anchor baby" thing is a non-issue as demonstrated by this article. Having a US citizen child does not confer any rights to the parents, or at least cannot do so until their 18th birthday. These people have no legal leg to stand on, they must leave the USA, whether the child is a US citizen or not.

[Minya's wife 25]

what do you think?

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/...cle_1761103.php

I can see how it must be upsetting, but to have been here illegally for so many years BEFORE they had the child, ignoring orders and thumbing their noses at the law, makes you wonder whether the "anchor" baby is being used as a means to an end. They could and should have left way before the child was even born so although I feel sad they have a sick child, I don't feel any sympathy for their immigration predicament as it's clearly self-inflicted - and one for which the great American taxpayer is paying and will be for the rest of the child's life.

Did you actually read the whole article?

The Roas crossed the border illegally in 1990, and following poor legal advice, entered a frivolous case for asylum. In November 2004, after many twists and turns through immigration courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled they were in the United States illegally and gave them the option of leaving on their own, Haley said.

Their crime is crossing the border illegally. They tried to do things the legal way afterwards....received poor legal advice (how many here on VJ didn't get bad legal advice stalling their case further?) and got stuck in immigration he!! The court ruled against them in 2004, and they were given the option to leave....so they've been ignoring orders and "thumbing their nose" at law for a little less than 3 years...bad thing, but not so many years as you say. And the 'anchor baby' as a means to an end comment is just sad, given the context and the illness of the child in this piece. This child is 17 months old, meaning she was born perhaps in Feb. 2006....and the parents asked to voluntarily leave in November 2004.....the mom wasn't even pregnant when they received orders from immigration!

Means to an end?....how many stories have we heard or read about, of parents w/ a very sick child, who have a second child expressly because the "bone marrow"(or whatever) of the second child will save the first one? That is a 'means to an end' type situation...but that's viewed as the love of a parent, who will do anything, sacrifice anything to save their child!?!

-P

Edited July 12, 2007 by Paula&Minya

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To say children, of any variety, are "running up a huge bill for the taxpayer" is downright cold.

So, I suppose that our not funding birth clinics, pre- and post-natal care all around the globe makes us a very cold nation? Newsflash: Most countries do not award citizenship to children born on their soil unless those children are those of lawful residents or citizens of said country. That doesn't make those nations "cold" nations. It's fairly common sense.

No Reinhard, I'm not talking about what happens anywhere else but on our own soil. And I'm not talking about residency either. I'm talking about looking into the face of any child and considering a problem they have as a 'drain' on taxpayers.

Period. End. Nothing Else.

I talked specifically about the drain on taxpayers that is caused by the provision of birthright citizenship. I did not advocate not caring for a child - any child - in need. We could and very likely would do that without that child being a citizen by birth.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Jeez yes! The current policy of having a child born on US soil and automatically becoming a citizen is one of many things that need to be changed.

No, it doesn't.

This is not the "current policy", the right of a person born in the USA to be considered a US citizen is guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution as ratified in 1868.

The "anchor baby" thing is a non-issue as demonstrated by this article. Having a US citizen child does not confer any rights to the parents, or at least cannot do so until their 18th birthday. These people have no legal leg to stand on, they must leave the USA, whether the child is a US citizen or not.

Wanna bet that they won't?

[kerewin21 2]

I think this just shows what a huge problem is posed by the reality of illegal immigration and how hard it's going to be to fix it. Sure, you can say send the parents home, they broke the law, but you have to feel something for that poor little baby I'm glad I'm not one of the people who has to come up with a humanitarian, fair way to get us out of this mess.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The court ruled against them in 2004, and they were given the option to leave....so they've been ignoring orders and "thumbing their nose" at law for a little less than 3 years...bad thing, but not so many years as you say. And the 'anchor baby' as a means to an end comment is just sad, given the context and the illness of the child in this piece. This child is 17 months old, meaning she was born perhaps in Feb. 2006....and the parents asked to voluntarily leave in November 2004.....the mom wasn't even pregnant when they received orders from immigration!

Fistly, the frivolous asylum case does not count for "trying to do things legally". They knew they had no asylum case whatever advice they may have received. They knew that filing an asylum case is in no way a true representation of the facts. So, first they snuck in, then they knowingly lied to the government in an attempt to fraudulently obtain an immigratuion benefit.

Secondly, after having been afforded due process and after having been given the opportunity to do things the legal way (leave) they decided to rather ignore the law once again and remain here. Then they started a family here. And you want to believe that they didn't do that in hopes that this would better their chances of staying here?

Whatever.

The condition of the child is very unfortunate. The parents always have the option of not separating from the child. But go home they must. We have enough con artists as it is. No need for two more.

[Fandango 1,440]

I think this just shows what a huge problem is posed by the reality of illegal immigration and how hard it's going to be to fix it. Sure, you can say send the parents home, they broke the law, but you have to feel something for that poor little baby I'm glad I'm not one of the people who has to come up with a humanitarian, fair way to get us out of this mess.

Well I don't think anyone here is not feeling empathy for the child's predicament. And she will be cared for...that's not up for debate. But saying 'care for the child is a huge cost to the taxpayers' is just a statement of fact; it's not questioning whether the child will or will not receive the treatment she needs.

[Ban Hammer 13,979]

what do you think?

http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/...cle_1761103.php

I can see how it must be upsetting, but to have been here illegally for so many years BEFORE they had the child, ignoring orders and thumbing their noses at the law, makes you wonder whether the "anchor" baby is being used as a means to an end. They could and should have left way before the child was even born so although I feel sad they have a sick child, I don't feel any sympathy for their immigration predicament as it's clearly self-inflicted - and one for which the great American taxpayer is paying and will be for the rest of the child's life.

Did you actually read the whole article?

The Roas crossed the border illegally in 1990, and following poor legal advice, entered a frivolous case for asylum. In November 2004, after many twists and turns through immigration courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals ruled they were in the United States illegally and gave them the option of leaving on their own, Haley said.

Their crime is crossing the border illegally. They tried to do things the legal way afterwards....received poor legal advice (how many here on VJ didn't get bad legal advice stalling their case further?) and got stuck in immigration he!! The court ruled against them in 2004, and they were given the option to leave....so they've been ignoring orders and "thumbing their nose" at law for a little less than 3 years...bad thing, but not so many years as you say. And the 'anchor baby' as a means to an end comment is just sad, given the context and the illness of the child in this piece. This child is 17 months old, meaning she was born perhaps in Feb. 2006....and the parents asked to voluntarily leave in November 2004.....the mom wasn't even pregnant when they received orders from immigration!

Means to an end?....how many stories have we heard or read about, of parents w/ a very sick child, who have a second child expressly because the "bone marrow"(or whatever) of the second child will save the first one? That is a 'means to an end' type situation...but that's viewed as the love of a parent, who will do anything, sacrifice anything to save their child!?!

-P

i fully agree. they've been trying to milk the system.

[Minya's wife 25]

The court ruled against them in 2004, and they were given the option to leave....so they've been ignoring orders and "thumbing their nose" at law for a little less than 3 years...bad thing, but not so many years as you say. And the 'anchor baby' as a means to an end comment is just sad, given the context and the illness of the child in this piece. This child is 17 months old, meaning she was born perhaps in Feb. 2006....and the parents asked to voluntarily leave in November 2004.....the mom wasn't even pregnant when they received orders from immigration!

Fistly, the frivolous asylum case does not count for "trying to do things legally". They knew they had no asylum case whatever advice they may have received. They knew that filing an asylum case is in no way a true representation of the facts. So, first they snuck in, then they knowingly lied to the government in an attempt to fraudulently obtain an immigratuion benefit. We do not know the details of these people's lives...upon what slim chance they based their belief that asylum may work. We're given too little info in the article to gauge that. And bad...no horrible legal advice and/or representation is something we've seen here on VJ all too often to discount, and say this family should have known better. They were paying for legal representation, they thought their lawyer would know what to do....that it turned out to be the unfortunate beginning of their nightmare is very unfortunate. I was just saying that their intent was to do things legally....to me this does not seem like the case of someone who blatantly thumbs their nose at all imigration laws, and contintues to do so all their lives.

Secondly, after having been afforded due process and after having been given the opportunity to do things the legal way (leave) they decided to rather ignore the law once again and remain here. Then they started a family here. And you want to believe that they didn't do that in hopes that this would better their chances of staying here?

I'm not saying that the idea of having a child that is born in the US didn't offer them somewhat of a feeling of security....but to conceive in order to better their chances?...I just don't see it as such a calculated move on the part of this couple.

The condition of the child is very unfortunate. The parents always have the option of not separating from the child. But go home they must. We have enough con artists as it is. No need for two more.

I agree with you...the legal options of the parents have been exhausted, they must go home. I hope they are able to resolve the situation for their child to the best conclusion possible, but after that, yes they should be sent back.

I guess I just do not see this as clear cut example to support the "deport" all illegals argument....and that was the sense I was getting in reading a few of the posts in this thread.

[John & Annie 1]

Action = Consequence

[Twomoles 8]

Sounds to me like they WANTED an anchor and scored big with the genetic disease.

Jeez yes! The current policy of having a child born on US soil and automatically becoming a citizen is one of many things that need to be changed. If both parents are here illegally, that should not automatically qualify the child to be a US citizen. That child should only be the citizen of the country where their illegal parents have originated. It's time to cut the anchoring incentive

I agree. This is thing what could stop me seriously. I will want my child to have Latvian citizenship. So what then - I will have to go back to have it born there and how I will bring him here with with visa?

And really, if America is melting pot, do you become citizen only because you born here? Its silly.

[Mononoke28 137]

Illegal immigration will never end, period. Just like drugs. No easy answers.