Children separated from illegal parents

[ADigitalArtist]

Separate subjects in my book. Abuse of gay marriage laws is a subject for another thread maybe.

I can see mothers and babies heading for precarious situations as just one issue. And this is not the type and purpose of the immigration process that is sanctioned by any immigration system.

Uh, any? 196 countries grant citizenship upon birth. Including Canada.

 

[1137]

Yep, that’s me. You sure got me figured out. Well done.

Nothing to figure out, was just allowing acknowledging your post

 

[George-ananda]

Uh, any? 196 countries grant citizenship upon birth. Including Canada.

When the parents are in that country illegally? You better check your facts.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

When the parents are in that country illegally? You better check your facts.

Yes. Upon birth is upon birth. You could be a non-resident in canada, have a child, and that child will be a natural born citizen. (Same as the US.)

 

[George-ananda]

Yes. Upon birth is upon birth. You could be a non-resident in canada, have a child, and that child will be a natural born citizen. (Same as the US.)

That doesn't add up to 196.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

That doesn't add up to 196.

Go do some research on 'naturalized upon birth' yourself then and find any contradictions. In the meanwhile, you said none and that is patently false.
Both the US and Canada have the same citizen ar birth laws, and in one case a little girl with non-canadian parents was even granted Canadian citizenship because she was born on a plane over Canada even though the plane was not coming from or heading to Canada.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Baby girl born on US-bound flight

 

[Kirran]

And then you will have the outcry of the separation as the next issue. Or parents and child automatically become legal as the next step??

I can see mothers and babies heading for precarious situations as just one issue. And this is not the type and purpose of the immigration process that is sanctioned by any immigration system.

I didn't say we should separate families.

People are not legal or illegal, incidentally, George. But sure, permanent residency or something for the immediate relatives, with options to apply for citizenship in the course of time, in the normal way.

 

[George-ananda]

I didn't say we should separate families.

People are not legal or illegal, incidentally, George. But sure, permanent residency or something for the immediate relatives, with options to apply for citizenship in the course of time, in the normal way.

People can be illegally in a country, correct?

I do not see how you are not on the path of saying parents of a child born in the US should be given legal residency rights as I know you don't support separation.

 

[fantome profane]

What does your reply mean? Are you saying I am desperate? Or are you saying the desperation of the parents justifies them endangering their children? Your post is ambiguous.

You asked a question. I gave an answer.

 

[Kirran]

People can be illegally in a country, correct?

I do not see how you are not on the path of saying parents of a child born in the US should be given legal residency rights as I know you don't support separation.

That is 100% what I am saying, yes.

 

[George-ananda]

Go do some research on 'naturalized upon birth' yourself then and find any contradictions. In the meanwhile, you said none and that is patently false.
Both the US and Canada have the same citizen ar birth laws, and in one case a little girl with non-canadian parents was even granted Canadian citizenship because she was born on a plane over Canada even though the plane was not coming from or heading to Canada.
BBC NEWS | Americas | Baby girl born on US-bound flight

I looked up 'Naturalization' on Wikipedia and the first sentence of the first country read:

The People's Republic of China gives citizenship to persons with one or two parents with Chinese nationality who have not taken residence in other countries.

The US and Canada are much the exception to the rule. There are not 196 such countries. Actually very few.

AND, it has been logically argued that the writers of the US Constitution were not envisioning modern transportation where you can have pregnancy visits. Pregnancy hotels and coming to the US for the purpose of gaining citizenship rights for the child were not envisioned in the 1700's so this is really jobbing a system on a technicality in a way never intended. That is why I said this was never part of the intention of immigration policy.

 

[George-ananda]

That is 100% what I am saying, yes.

And that is why we disagree.

I see the enormous problems of people getting or sneaking into the country any way possible and delivering a baby. And then giving full legal residency rights to all involved.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, I get a bit angry with the liberal ploy of referring to people in the country illegally as 'immigrants'! Or as 'undocumented aliens'.

Do these so-called liberals want no immigration laws or what? They never seem to answer that question

You should look harder. I've seen the question answered multiple times. No one wants "open borders", people want a clear path to citizenship and humane treatment of... whatever your preffered term for illegal immigrant is, and their children. Whatever it is, those don't seem like unreasonable asks. To me, at least.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

it’s like liberals are avoiding the question of WHEN to actually get tough. They just describe when they would not get tough. I see no firm line in the sand which has to be necessary when you have more desiring immigration than there are legal places.

Why does it have to be "tought?" Why not sensible and humane? We don't need to be "tough" on enforcing the laws we have, we need to redesign the system from the ground up.

They don't seem to have a tough time from taking children from families deemed unfit negligent or abusive.

Actually, they can have a very difficult time with this.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And that is why we disagree.

I see the enormous problems of people getting or sneaking into the country any way possible and delivering a baby. And then giving full legal residency rights to all involved.

"Enormous problems" such as...?

 

[Shad]

I see a lot of talk about how evil Trump is for separating children from families when kicking illegal immigrants out of the country. It kind of baffles me. Here an individual who committed a crime is being punished for it and the child remains free of their sin. Which would you prefer, sending the kids back too? I'm one who agrees that any good intentioned person should be able to get citizenship quickly, but a crime is a crime is it not? It's illegal immigration. I think that not punishing the children is wonderful.

The underlying problem are the systems which handle immigration, asylum, detention, processing and the counts. Each is overburden and understaffed. By Law children can only be in detention for 20 days in order to process each as a ward of the state and moved into a "normalized" life. They can not be detained with an adult population for obvious risk factors as they are wards of the state now. By the very nature of detention parents have lost guardianship of their children anyways. The parents are detained until a power that be releases them on a bond or appearance order, or until the see a judge. The systems are incapable of processing the adult population within a 20 day window.

There is no solution acceptable by all not even improving the systems creating this mess.

 

[George-ananda]

You should look harder. I've seen the question answered multiple times. No one wants "open borders", people want a clear path to citizenship and humane treatment of... whatever your preffered term for illegal immigrant is, and their children. Whatever it is, those don't seem like unreasonable asks. To me, at least.

Don't we have clear laws and rules now for all of that?

Who determines if these laws and rules are liberal or conservative enough for everyone's liking? 'Our democratically elected representatives' is my answer.

 

[George-ananda]

Why does it have to be "tought?" Why not sensible and humane? We don't need to be "tough" on enforcing the laws we have, we need to redesign the system from the ground up.

Who then determines if the laws are sensible and humane (subjective terms)? I think the answer is 'our democratically elected representatives' and, no, neither the liberals nor the conservatives will be fully happy with the laws.

 

[George-ananda]

"Enormous problems" such as...?

Pregnant women endangering their health and their babies health by trying to sneak into the country in nefarious ways with the aid of unscrupulous agents promising them entry, etc.. As just starter problems.

Not good things to encourage, Armoured

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Pregnant women endangering their health and their babies health by trying to sneak into the country in nefarious ways with the aid of unscrupulous agents promising them entry, etc.. As just starter problems.

Not good things to encourage, Armoured

Soooo... give them opportunities to enter the country legally so they don't put themselves at risk with illegal entry. Problem solved, glad I could help. Any other "enormous problems" worrying you?