(Illegal) Immigration crackdown expands along border

[natty bumppo 297]

Absolutely. But it's not certain to happen. Maybe there's another parent to look after them, or grandparents. Saying, "Send the anchor babies back with the parents", as Natty has done, doesn't leave much leeway.

Let's try this again ... The Parents Are Responsible For Their Child. It is the parents child ... yes?

When the parents leave ... they have the responsibility to take care of their child. Should the parent decide to leave the child behind ... it's abandonment by the parent.

This may be oversimplified but:

Did you ever relocate ... as a child? Did your parents take you along or leave you behind?

We are coming from this at different ways. My argument is - deportation is an unnecessary punishment. Therefore I obviously don't agree that children should be deported also.

I was also pointing out that Charles' analogy didn't quite fit. When parents go to jail, the child is punished by the separation from them, but not from their own home.

horse hockey !!!

are you saying ... the parents are in jail ... and the child still has a home??? Wow the child keeps house ...

[SteveLaura 0]

Absolutely. But it's not certain to happen. Maybe there's another parent to look after them, or grandparents. Saying, "Send the anchor babies back with the parents", as Natty has done, doesn't leave much leeway.

Let's try this again ... The Parents Are Responsible For Their Child. It is the parents child ... yes?

When the parents leave ... they have the responsibility to take care of their child. Should the parent decide to leave the child behind ... it's abandonment by the parent.

This may be oversimplified but:

Did you ever relocate ... as a child? Did your parents take you along or leave you behind?

We are coming from this at different ways. My argument is - deportation is an unnecessary punishment. Therefore I obviously don't agree that children should be deported also.

I was also pointing out that Charles' analogy didn't quite fit. When parents go to jail, the child is punished by the separation from them, but not from their own home.

horse hockey !!!

are you saying ... the parents are in jail ... and the child still has a home??? Wow the child keeps house ...

Selective reading, Natty? I've helped you out. Cheers.

[natty bumppo 297]

Absolutely. But it's not certain to happen. Maybe there's another parent to look after them, or grandparents. Saying, "Send the anchor babies back with the parents", as Natty has done, doesn't leave much leeway.

Let's try this again ... The Parents Are Responsible For Their Child. It is the parents child ... yes?

When the parents leave ... they have the responsibility to take care of their child. Should the parent decide to leave the child behind ... it's abandonment by the parent.

This may be oversimplified but:

Did you ever relocate ... as a child? Did your parents take you along or leave you behind?

We are coming from this at different ways. My argument is - deportation is an unnecessary punishment. Therefore I obviously don't agree that children should be deported also.

I was also pointing out that Charles' analogy didn't quite fit. When parents go to jail, the child is punished by the separation from them, but not from their own home.

horse hockey !!!

are you saying ... the parents are in jail ... and the child still has a home??? Wow the child keeps house ...

Selective reading, Natty? I've helped you out. Cheers.

the discussion was about the home .. loss of ... parents (you typed plural) in jail .. the child is self sufficient ?

which brings us back too ... if the parents who broke the law .. are sent home ... it is their actions that caused this event. How they deal with their children is their choice. They can take the children or leave the children behind.

With either option .. it is the sole choice and responsibility of the parents ... nobody else.

[SteveLaura 0]

the discussion was about the home .. loss of ... parents (you typed plural) in jail .. the child is self sufficient ?

which brings us back too ... if the parents who broke the law .. are sent home ... it is their actions that caused this event. How they deal with their children is their choice. They can take the children or leave the children behind.

With either option .. it is the sole choice and responsibility of the parents ... nobody else.

Well, it's not usual that both parents end up in jail at exactly the same time, but whatever. The point is that the crimes of the parent does not automatically result in the child being punished also by being removed from their home. That was your original line of thought - "Send the anchor babies back with the parents". If you want to make that a 'choice' now, rather than a definitive statement, that's up to you.

[natty bumppo 297]

the discussion was about the home .. loss of ... parents (you typed plural) in jail .. the child is self sufficient ?

which brings us back too ... if the parents who broke the law .. are sent home ... it is their actions that caused this event. How they deal with their children is their choice. They can take the children or leave the children behind.

With either option .. it is the sole choice and responsibility of the parents ... nobody else.

Well, it's not usual that both parents end up in jail at exactly the same time, but whatever. The point is that the crimes of the parent does not automatically result in the child being punished also by being removed from their home. That was your original line of thought - "Send the anchor babies back with the parents". If you want to make that a 'choice' now, rather than a definitive statement, that's up to you.

on deportation ... why break-up the family? send the child(s) back with the parent(s) ... it's a bona fide offer. Should the parent(s) elect (read choose) to not take the child ... the child stays and the parent(s) just go.

By abandoning the child ... the illegals just became yet another burden on our society by their irresponsibility to the results of their ... err ... ... well ... it caused a child.

If people want to be illegal ... and not risk a parent/ child separation ... then advice to the parents ... don't have children until you go home or become legal.

[silvanski 1]

This happened last weekend right around our corner...

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/233/story/140377.html

A Victoria police officer attempted to make a standard traffic stop when a pickup evaded him.

When the truck finally stopped, possibly up to 30 individuals jumped out of the vehicle and scattered across both lanes of the highway.

Edited October 30, 2007 by Silvanski

[natty bumppo 297]

This happened last weekend right around our corner...

http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/233/story/140377.html

A Victoria police officer attempted to make a standard traffic stop when a pickup evaded him.

When the truck finally stopped, possibly up to 30 individuals jumped out of the vehicle and scattered across both lanes of the highway.

illegals aren't a waste or burden ... right .... looks like we just spent a lot of taxpayer $$$ in yet another episode ...

[SteveLaura 0]

the discussion was about the home .. loss of ... parents (you typed plural) in jail .. the child is self sufficient ?

which brings us back too ... if the parents who broke the law .. are sent home ... it is their actions that caused this event. How they deal with their children is their choice. They can take the children or leave the children behind.

With either option .. it is the sole choice and responsibility of the parents ... nobody else.

Well, it's not usual that both parents end up in jail at exactly the same time, but whatever. The point is that the crimes of the parent does not automatically result in the child being punished also by being removed from their home. That was your original line of thought - "Send the anchor babies back with the parents". If you want to make that a 'choice' now, rather than a definitive statement, that's up to you.

on deportation ... why break-up the family? send the child(s) back with the parent(s) ... it's a bona fide offer. Should the parent(s) elect (read choose) to not take the child ... the child stays and the parent(s) just go.

By abandoning the child ... the illegals just became yet another burden on our society by their irresponsibility to the results of their ... err ... ... well ... it caused a child.

If people want to be illegal ... and not risk a parent/ child separation ... then advice to the parents ... don't have children until you go home or become legal.

Why break up the family indeed. The child has committed no crime. The child is a US citizen. Why would you deport him/her? Keep the family together. Let the parents stay, pay the fine, get them legal, paying taxes.

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

the discussion was about the home .. loss of ... parents (you typed plural) in jail .. the child is self sufficient ?

which brings us back too ... if the parents who broke the law .. are sent home ... it is their actions that caused this event. How they deal with their children is their choice. They can take the children or leave the children behind.

With either option .. it is the sole choice and responsibility of the parents ... nobody else.

Well, it's not usual that both parents end up in jail at exactly the same time, but whatever. The point is that the crimes of the parent does not automatically result in the child being punished also by being removed from their home. That was your original line of thought - "Send the anchor babies back with the parents". If you want to make that a 'choice' now, rather than a definitive statement, that's up to you.

on deportation ... why break-up the family? send the child(s) back with the parent(s) ... it's a bona fide offer. Should the parent(s) elect (read choose) to not take the child ... the child stays and the parent(s) just go.

By abandoning the child ... the illegals just became yet another burden on our society by their irresponsibility to the results of their ... err ... ... well ... it caused a child.

If people want to be illegal ... and not risk a parent/ child separation ... then advice to the parents ... don't have children until you go home or become legal.

Why break up the family indeed. The child has committed no crime. The child is a US citizen. Why would you deport him/her? Keep the family together. Let the parents stay, pay the fine, get them legal, paying taxes.

right, just have an anchor baby to stay here. brilliant idea

[SteveLaura 0]

right, just have an anchor baby to stay here. brilliant idea

You know what? Women have babies anyway. Was is it, part of the constitution? Bill of rights? Excuse me, but my knowledge of US history is skimpy - my UK school skipped it. If you want to write to the powers to be to get this 'loophole' removed, knock yerself out. But as NavarreMan keeps stating, the law is the law. Children of immigrants - legal or not - are citizens. Whilst that still stands, I don't see what is served by breaking up families, just to punish the parents.

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

right, just have an anchor baby to stay here. brilliant idea

You know what? Women have babies anyway. Was is it, part of the constitution? Bill of rights? Excuse me, but my knowledge of US history is skimpy - my UK school skipped it. If you want to write to the powers to be to get this 'loophole' removed, knock yerself out. But as NavarreMan keeps stating, the law is the law. Children of immigrants - legal or not - are citizens. Whilst that still stands, I don't see what is served by breaking up families, just to punish the parents.

while i don't see a reason to allow there to be an end run around the immigration rules with that.

[Scott & Lai 12]

the discussion was about the home .. loss of ... parents (you typed plural) in jail .. the child is self sufficient ?

which brings us back too ... if the parents who broke the law .. are sent home ... it is their actions that caused this event. How they deal with their children is their choice. They can take the children or leave the children behind.

With either option .. it is the sole choice and responsibility of the parents ... nobody else.

Well, it's not usual that both parents end up in jail at exactly the same time, but whatever. The point is that the crimes of the parent does not automatically result in the child being punished also by being removed from their home. That was your original line of thought - "Send the anchor babies back with the parents". If you want to make that a 'choice' now, rather than a definitive statement, that's up to you.

on deportation ... why break-up the family? send the child(s) back with the parent(s) ... it's a bona fide offer. Should the parent(s) elect (read choose) to not take the child ... the child stays and the parent(s) just go.

By abandoning the child ... the illegals just became yet another burden on our society by their irresponsibility to the results of their ... err ... ... well ... it caused a child.

If people want to be illegal ... and not risk a parent/ child separation ... then advice to the parents ... don't have children until you go home or become legal.

Why break up the family indeed. The child has committed no crime. The child is a US citizen. Why would you deport him/her? Keep the family together. Let the parents stay, pay the fine, get them legal, paying taxes.

This is why we call them anchor babies...

[SteveLaura 0]

right, just have an anchor baby to stay here. brilliant idea

You know what? Women have babies anyway. Was is it, part of the constitution? Bill of rights? Excuse me, but my knowledge of US history is skimpy - my UK school skipped it. If you want to write to the powers to be to get this 'loophole' removed, knock yerself out. But as NavarreMan keeps stating, the law is the law. Children of immigrants - legal or not - are citizens. Whilst that still stands, I don't see what is served by breaking up families, just to punish the parents.

while i don't see a reason to allow there to be an end run around the immigration rules with that.

Fine. Like I said, write all the letters you want. If the law is changed, then deporting both parent & child would be more logical. As it stands, I'm against breaking up families to satisfy a punishment against the parents.

[SteveLaura 0]

the discussion was about the home .. loss of ... parents (you typed plural) in jail .. the child is self sufficient ?

which brings us back too ... if the parents who broke the law .. are sent home ... it is their actions that caused this event. How they deal with their children is their choice. They can take the children or leave the children behind.

With either option .. it is the sole choice and responsibility of the parents ... nobody else.

Well, it's not usual that both parents end up in jail at exactly the same time, but whatever. The point is that the crimes of the parent does not automatically result in the child being punished also by being removed from their home. That was your original line of thought - "Send the anchor babies back with the parents". If you want to make that a 'choice' now, rather than a definitive statement, that's up to you.

on deportation ... why break-up the family? send the child(s) back with the parent(s) ... it's a bona fide offer. Should the parent(s) elect (read choose) to not take the child ... the child stays and the parent(s) just go.

By abandoning the child ... the illegals just became yet another burden on our society by their irresponsibility to the results of their ... err ... ... well ... it caused a child.

If people want to be illegal ... and not risk a parent/ child separation ... then advice to the parents ... don't have children until you go home or become legal.

Why break up the family indeed. The child has committed no crime. The child is a US citizen. Why would you deport him/her? Keep the family together. Let the parents stay, pay the fine, get them legal, paying taxes.

This is why we call them anchor babies...

Scott, what are your thoughts regarding families? Do you believe that children are best served where their biological parents are actively involved in their upbringing & welfare?

[Ban Hammer 14,271]

right, just have an anchor baby to stay here. brilliant idea

You know what? Women have babies anyway. Was is it, part of the constitution? Bill of rights? Excuse me, but my knowledge of US history is skimpy - my UK school skipped it. If you want to write to the powers to be to get this 'loophole' removed, knock yerself out. But as NavarreMan keeps stating, the law is the law. Children of immigrants - legal or not - are citizens. Whilst that still stands, I don't see what is served by breaking up families, just to punish the parents.

while i don't see a reason to allow there to be an end run around the immigration rules with that.

Fine. Like I said, write all the letters you want. If the law is changed, then deporting both parent & child would be more logical. As it stands, I'm against breaking up families to satisfy a punishment against the parents.

enjoy the benefits of that then.

FAIR estimates "there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (between 8.7 and 11 million). In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year."

link