Parents not legally in the USA, but their children born here. Deport before children reach age 18?

[Boojatta]

If the parents and children are living together, then they can be deported as a family unit. If an adult was born in America, and has never lived elsewhere, and there's a good chance that the adult no longer lives with his or her parents, then the situation is quite different. However, it doesn't seem that eighteen years is fast action. If it were a political priority, then wouldn't it be possible for law enforcement to deport people within, say, ten years of the birth of a child born in the USA to parents who aren't legally residing here? I'm talking about an outside limit of ten years for perhaps ninety-five percent of cases. I would hope that at least half of the cases would involve deportation within a couple of years of surreptitious entry or within a couple of years of having reached the end of what a student visa or tourist visa allows.

It just happens that a very small percentage (if any) of the people who are living in America without legal authorization are Japanese. However, suppose that the majority were Japanese. Then wouldn't it be of great interest to note that it's very difficult to acquire Japanese citizenship? Japan doesn't simply give periodic amnesty allowing foreigners living in Japan to easily acquire Japanese citizenship.

If there are any Japanese people living in the USA without legal authorization, then there is a kind of double standard that operates in favor of them and against any American who is interested in living and working in Japan. It's not a big enough part of the whole picture to attract the attention of people who think in terms of overall statistical trends. However, from the point of view of good and evil, can you explain why the idea of deporting people from America can be evil if it is at the same time considered perfectly okay for Japan to take firm action to ensure that no "foreigner" (from the point of view of Japan) can get even one foot in the door?

[FreakinDJ]

1. Not if they file the correct paperwork

This is EXACTLY why I think the whole Immigration debate is STUPID

Most of these folk could file and indeed be granted Naturalization if indeed they only took the time and trouble to file the paperwork.

NOW before the Truly Uninformed begin trashing me for being a bigot, hear me out. I'm no lawyer, no political appointee, and even I used to have a website outlining the procedures for legal immigration. It's not Brain Surgery folks. And yes I have personally helped 100s if not 1000s to successfully immigrate to the United States.

But what I have ZERO tolerance for are the few who think they shouldn't have to. That they some how have the right to illegally sneak into the United States and demand full citizenship merely for showing up.

[proud2BlibKansan]

4. It takes 18 months to even get into our local immigration office to begin applying for citizenship

Taking the time and trouble to fill out the paperwork is far more complicated than you imply.

It also depends on what country you come from. A co-worker from the Czech Republic was here 4 years before she was finally a citizen. People from Central America are way behind her in the line, even if they have been here longer.

My friend's daughter is married to a man from China who can't even get in line. They are living in China because he can't come here.

They sneak in because it is their only alternative. Most of the undocumented folks I know would go to the trouble of filling out and filing paperwork if they could.

[FreakinDJ]

10. Sorry - but your wrong and I hate to say it but - BULLSHIT

Who needs to go into the local immigration office to file paperwork? - its all on-line

As for "It also depends on what country you come from" that would not apply to the Czech Republic. There are 4 countries (count them I said 4) that are on the State Department Watch List - China, Russian Federation, Vietnam, and the Philippines. and I'm still trying to figuare out how the Philippines made the list. AND YES my website was directed at helping people from 1 of the countries on the watch list

"My friend's daughter is married to a man from China who can't even get in line" tell your daughter's friend to contact me through PM. I can expedite her husbands petition. I have a very near perfect record of succesful K-3 petitions

"They sneak in because it is their only alternative" don't get me started, that is PURE BULLSHIT. I have many friends who given the choice of sneaking across the boarder or legally immigrating have succesfully immigrated to the United States

[EFerrari]

20. Your experience is not typical in any way. This city is full of people

who would do anything to file some paper and be done with living as they do.

[FreakinDJ]

25. Again that is NOT TRUE

First become acquainted with immigration law before engaging key-board commando response

The On-lione filing of Visa Applications can be found http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/forms/forms_1342.html">HERE

I was up at the court house about 6 months ago helping the brother of friend (Mexican National) file for an expungment of a minor infraction to make his petition look squeaky clean as it went through the Immigration process

No - he didn't need to file a 601 waver (as if you know what that is) but there are a few rules to filing immigration paperwork that make petitions go through like a bullet. For instance my wife's paperwork, a K-3 Visa was approved in 30 days. The norm is 90-180 days, and she is from 1 of the countries on the watch list

Have a good day and please excuse my naturally asshole behavior. As I've said before I have little to no tolerance for the disinformation clouding this issue

[EFerrari]

28. Excuse me. I've been helping undocumented workers get help

here in San Jose for years and I don't need a lecture from you nor am I interested in what you do or don't tolerate. Oh, and many of these people do not own computers. You have a good day, too.

[FreakinDJ]

31. Then you too should be an Advocate for Legal Immigration

and I am pretty sure you are

There is far way too much disinformation (on both sides of the fence) clouding the issue for those that need help.

Most of the folks American of Foreign get lost in the language. Self-Help centers such as the 1 the catholic diocese run down in San Jose are a wonderful thing. The 1 thing I have to impress the most on would-be applicants is they have to tell the truth from the very onset so as to proceed properly. Any sort of Fraudulent misrepresentation to the INS immediately bars them for life.

So people need not be scared - they need to remember we were all here once and people are basically the same world over, and what they think are impassible, insurmountable, barriers to their life are merely opportunities for them to excel

Have a good day and thank you for your service

[proud2BlibKansan]

21. Gee who am I going to believe?

Some anonymous person on the internet or my own experiences?

Hmmm.

This link proves my point that it does indeed matter what country you are from: http://www.lawcom.com/immigration/pdwtlst.shtml

[FreakinDJ]

23. Proving Very Little Information is a Dangerous Thing

K-3 is not subject to the lottery.

Check the State Department's / Department of Naturalization and Immigration's website before you go listening to some lawyer looking to separate you from your MONEY

What Is a K-3 Visa?

Spouses of U.S. citizens, and the spouse's children, can come to the United States on nonimmigrant visas (K-3 and K-4) and wait in the United States to complete the immigration process. Before a K-4 visa can be issued to a child, the parent must have a K-3 visa or be in K-3 status.

What Is a "Spouse"?

A spouse is a legally wedded husband or wife. Cohabiting partners do not qualify as spouses for immigration purposes. Common-law spouses may qualify as spouses for immigration purposes depending on the laws of the country where the common-law marriage occurs. In cases of polygamy only the first spouse qualifies as a spouse for immigration.U.S. law does not allow polygamy. If you were married before, you and your spouse must show that you ended (terminated) all previous marriages before your current marriage. The death and divorce documents that show termination of marriages must be legal and verifiable in the country that issued them. Divorces must be final. In cases of legal marriage to two or more spouses at the same time, or marriages overlapping for a period of time, you may file only for the first spouse.

Filing - Two Petitions are Required

You must first file an immigrant Petition for Alien Relative, form I-130 for your spouse with the USCIS Office that serves the area where you live. The USCIS will send you a Notice of Action (Form I-797) receipt notice. This notice tells you that the USCIS has received the petition.
You next file Petition for Alien Fiancé(e), form I-129F for your spouse and children. Send the I-129F petition, supporting documents and a copy of the Form I-797 receipt notice to this Department of Homeland Security USCIS Address on their web site.
National Visa Center (NVC) Sends Petition To Post

After the USCIS approves the I-129F, it sends it to the National Visa Center (NVC). The NVC sends the petition to the embassy or consulate in the country where the marriage took place. If your marriage took place in the United States, the NVC sends the petition to the embassy or consulate that issues visas in the country of your spouse's nationality. If your marriage took place in a country that does not have an American embassy, or the embassy does not issue visas, the NVC sends the petition to the embassy or consulate that normally processes visas for citizens of that country. For example, if the marriage took place in Iran where the United States does not have an embassy, the petition would be sent to Turkey.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_2993.html

on second thought I have rescinded my invitation to help your daughter's Husband pro-bono

this is not an argument you are likely to win with me

[treestar]

18. There are no legal rights just for having a baby in the U.S.

the baby is a U.S. citizen but the parents are still illegal. The parents get deported, the kid goes with them for practical reasons. But the kid could always return when they want to. They are citizens.

http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigrants/types/types_1306.html

Midway down the page, "parent of a US citizen at least 21 years old."

So they can't do anything to legalize their parents until they turn 21.

[FreakinDJ]

29. Tell that to an estimated 20000 Taiwanese

Try googling the term "Anchor Baby" The topic is fraught with hateful Right-Wing Hate Speech, but only because 1000s of families legally immigrated here under those conditions

You have to have broken Federal Laws to be Exempted from being able to legally file on behalf of your child. And no - that does NOT include crossing the boarder illegally

[Jkid]

2. You got to think of the children. Cultural Naturalzation

The children will have to adjust being to a country where he/she does not know the customs or langauge. By the time the child reaches 10 they're already culturally naturalized to the country.

[Boojatta]

3. Should the immigration system make it harder for people who have ten-year-old children to come here?

From the point of view of a ten-year-old child who is already culturally naturalized somewhere, isn't coming to America just as much of a cultural adjustment problem as leaving?

[FreakinDJ]

12. They don't - you need to be acquainted with Immigration Laws

they don't make it harder - in fact many many Taiwanese used Anchor Babies to gain admission to the United States

[Boojatta]

15. I didn't ask, "Does the immigration system make it harder..."

I asked, "Should..."

[FreakinDJ]

17. Good Question - but you run into a little problem with the Constitution

If the child is born in the United States it is a US Citizen - end of subject

Once Citizenship has been established the parents have the right to file on the child's behalf for their own immigration/naturalization.

The Question you pose, was the this done fraudulently to circumvent immigration. In the case of people 8 1/2 months pregnant flying to the United States on a 90 day Visitor's Visa I would say inexplicably YES. However - that does not remedy the Child's (US Citizen) situation

[Zywiec]

6. How were the parents able to adjust

Since they were already culturally naturalized to their first country?

:shrug:

[proud2BlibKansan]

5. If they are working and paying taxes they should be allowed to stay

One of the brightest kids I know graduated at the top of her class in high school and is working fast food because she can't even get into a college since she was born in another country and came here when she was a baby. That's wrong.

[FreakinDJ]

16. Again that is NOT TRUE

why don't you address the reply I have already made to your first post before running down this thread and spreading disinformation

proud2BlibKansan - I've followed your post here at DU and posted many times in agreement with you but on this issue you are bitting into a load of disinformation. Plain and simple I respect your opinions and am a bit surprised your not better informed on the issue at hand

[proud2BlibKansan]

24. I replied to you

I don't appreciate you calling me a liar. In the state of MO we have tens of thousands of kids who can't go to college because they weren't born here. It is illegal to offer them financial aid, which blocks 99% from attending college.

Since most of the kids I teach are from immigrant families I do keep up with this. I too have helped them wade through immigration requirements. And I have lobbied against these draconian laws.

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/resources/publications/in-news/missouri-house-bans-illegal-immigrants-college.html

http://www.komu.com/satellite/SatelliteRender/KOMU.com/ba8a4513-c0a8-2f11-0063-9bd94c70b769/d61331c4-80ce-0971-0039-c40ba536bc83

http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/31727427/Missouri-Bill-Would-Bar-Illegal-Immigrants-from-State-Colleges

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5534305

South Carolina also bans non citizens from attending college.

[FreakinDJ]

26. I think you are referring to STATE LAWS

Which would cover the College Admissions policies

My wife had to wait 1 year to fulfill California residency requirements to avoid the enormous "Foreign Student Fees" for the State College close to us. She has a Masters degree in Architecture from 1988 but wanted to refreshen her skills with the modern AutoCad / ArchiCad classes now taught to all students of Architecture.

Again - unless they have Violated Federal Laws (Felons) they can legally gain lawful Naturalization

[proud2BlibKansan]

30. Yes state laws forbid kids from college unless they were born here

The girl I know probably doesn't care if it's a state or federal law. :eyes:

[FreakinDJ]

32. Has that law passed a constitutional test

"forbid kids from college unless they were born here"

Seems to me that would be usurping Federal Authority/Law in deciding what constitutes a Citizen of the United States. Naturalized Citizenship is granted by the Federal Government and that would appear to be in conflict with the 14th Amendment

Might be more of a topic to discuss with the ACLU

But do get the word out to the parents and faculty. If you have an exceptional student by age 13, BE SURE to clean up any Citizenship issues prior to the child becoming of college age

[proud2BlibKansan]

33. Good question

I know our good Democrats are fighting it.

I can report that here where I live in Kansas, kids who weren't born here are admitted to college and given in state tuition rates. Of course, the minutemen crew continually challenge this policy.

[FreakinDJ]

34. Try ACLU of Kansas - and please tell us what they say

http://www.aclukswmo.org/

Come on come on - give them a call


"He he he heh haha hahahahaha - My Evil plan to destoy the fucking RATpubliCONs is working its working hehehahahahahahahaha"

[proud2BlibKansan]

35. I reaIize it's confusing

but I live in KS and teach in MO. The draconian legislation I posted about is in MO. And yes I have already had a conversation with ACLU about this. They are looking into it.

We are much kinder to our undocumented people in KS. :)

[FreakinDJ]

38. Thanks - I remember when that legislation was proposed

I think I might have posted here at DU some thing about it never being able to pass Constitutional Muster - (boy is that some Shit-House Lawyering)

Perhaps start a thread or ask Skinner to call out for some activism in persuading the ACLU to take the case. I know they have to pick their battles dependant on funding and this 1 seems to only involve State and Federal Supreme Courts.

But in the mean time tell you colleagues to get the word out to the parents when the children are still young - this is some thing they have to do for their children's sake

[Lance_Boyle]

7. For the time being, yes - deport.

In the future, citizenship should not be granted on the basis of birth in the US alone - at least one parent should be a citizen in order to confer citizenship on a child born here. Incentivizing the "anchor baby" phenomenon is utterly asinine.

[Motown_Johnny]

8. The easy answer is to amend or interpret the Constitution to mean that

persons born in the U.S. are citizens only if the parent or parents were in the country legally. Rewarding illegal immigration with citizenship for the children obscures the problem.

[Zywiec]

13. +1 n/t

[treestar]

19. The child had nothing to do with it

They didn't choose to be born here.

It's not a reward to the parents.

[Motown_Johnny]

40. Yes, it is a reward to the parents

[SemiCharmedQuark]

41. Don't bother. As long as the United States has existed, the "real" Americans have been trying to

figure out ways of keeping those horrible immigrants out.

You haven't really made it as an American until your group can join ranks with the nativists and turn around and hate the next immigrant group.

Examples: German, Irish and Italian immigrants--all hated but now people proudly trace their ancestry back while simultaneously trying to close the door behind them.


Here's Benjamin Franklin on those "swarthy" Germans:

" Why should Pennsylvania, founded by the English, become a Colony of Aliens, who will shortly be so numerous as to Germanize us instead of our Anglifying them, and will never adopt our Language or Customs, any more than they can acquire our Complexion.

24. Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind. "

[izquierdista]

9. I would hope........deportation

And that is where you and I would disagree. Deportation is only another device that the haves can use to get the have-nots quarreling among themselves. As long as Bubba Redneck is screaming "they took our jobs!", he won't be taking out his anger on the one who is paying the salary of those jobs.

People have always been free to get up and move to a new land and make themselves at home. The people who are there first will always object to the newcomers, whether the newcomers are Japanese, Mexicans, English, or whatever culture they are. When the newcomers have money (like ex-patriate English in Spain), the objections are small and they are welcomed. When they are poor (Africans in Italy or Hondurans in the USA), the indignant object vociferously and they will be rounded up and 'deported'. Well, that is unless they voluntarily gas up their Lear jet and leave for long enough to say they have been gone. Then they can come back and be legal for another 3 or 6 months, depending on immigration laws.

If you want to run out of people to deport, the answer lies in not having any shitholes of poverty in the world. As long as wealth exists in any one place, the poor will be attracted to it and will run the risk of being 'deported' against the possibility that they might gain a piece of that wealth.

[Boojatta]

14. Eliminating poverty in the world sounds like a rather grandiose subgoal...

if the goal is to simply regulate immigration. Should there be a sub-department called "World Poverty Elimination" within a department of immigration in Japan?

[izquierdista]

39. It shouldn't be a sub-department

It's not such a grandiose goal. The estimates on the cost to eliminate world poverty run less than the DoD budget for one year.

[SargeUNN]

11. Problems with deporting those children

I think it would open a door that will be bad for all. First, if we do that it will require a constitutional amendment I would think, and secondly, it would make it possible to change who is a citizen in ways that if you don't follow a certain political preference you can have your citizenship stripped. If one thinks it wouldn't happen, just imagine Bush, who put people on the no fly list like Ted Kennedy and others who were considered by him a political enemy.

I also have interviewed young people who are caught in this web and are doing well. One young lady I talked to has been in this nation since age 2, gone to college and has the highest GPA in her school of the University she is going to. I asked her why she didn't apply for citizenship and her answer was rather shocking. She applies she will not only be deported to a country she doesn't know, but would have to wait 10 years to even apply again and because she has been here at her status, she would be refused citizenship.

There are those who are here to create trouble and deal in activities that are criminal, but these kind are more safe here in Arizona from those like Joe Arpaio than the ones who obey the laws even more than our own citizens, yet take no benefits because it would expose them to even apply. Arpaio just picks up these kinds but the real problems are ignored by Joe.

Also there is such racism here in Arizona that it reminds me of Mississippi back in Jim Crow. I lived in that state at that time and many of the same statements were made back then that I hear here in Arizona today.

It is a problem that needs addressing but in a sensible and thoughtful way without all the political partisanship. We will lose many good productive folks like the young lady I referred to above, and open the door to more abuses if we let propaganda and racism influence our policy.

[damntexdem]

22. Children born in the US are citizens, due the rights of all citizens.

They should NOT be deported. Nor should they be deprived of their parents.

[hunter]

27. I'd like to deport health insurance CEO's but I don't think any other nations will take them.

And George W. Bush and Dick Cheney have really got to go too. Maybe we could give them parachutes and push them out of an airplane somewhere over Afghanistan.

[TheKentuckian]

36. I believe any soul born here is a natural born US citizen entitled to all the rights

and protections that entails and I couldn't give two shits what Japan or any other country does.
That person gained his/her citizenship the exact same way any of the rest of us did. Further, the rest of the family should be allowed to stay and free to seek citizenship themselves.

[Blasphemer]

37. I completely agree... nt