The Law of Immigration - Part 1 - The Legality of Anchor Babies

This will probably become a multi-part posting as my views of immigration and illegal immigration are many, and very dear to my heart.

To start off, I fully support the immigration of people to the United States with the intention of working and/or becoming US Citizens.

What I disagree with, is the rampant illegal immigration of people to the United States for whatever reason and the failure of the US Government to take any significant measures to reduce or halt this invasion.

The explosive growth in the number of illegal immigrants to the United States can be traced to numerous reasons, whether it is to escape tyranny, flee from a hostile environment, or simply in search of the American Dream, each illegal immigrant will have his/her reason for shortcutting the legal immigration process, to cross the border and enter the US illegally.

There are many myths concerning illegal immigrants, and some of the ones that I will address in this letter (and later letters) can possibly do much to dispell these myths. Some of the things I will be addressing are:

1. The Legality of Anchor Babies
2. She's my wife and mother of my children so she automatically gets a Visa, right?
3. Illegal Immigrants are good for our country because they provide cheap labor!
4. Illegal Immigrants only take the jobs that Americans don't want!
5. There's Nothing I can do about this (or... It's a Federal Problem)!
6. And more (as I ponder carefully)

The first and foremost issue that I want to address is the Legality of Anchor Babies:

Currently, and baby born in the United States is automatically granted US Citizenship. In addition, any baby born overseas with a documented US Parent is granted this same US Citizenship. A baby born to an illegal immigrant inside of the US is also granted automatic citizenship in the US.

Historically, babies born inside of the US to parents who NOT citizens or LEGAL permanent residents (hence, illegal immigrants), have been granted this same US Citizenship. However, to prevent a separation of the child from his/her parents, the US Immigrations Service (formerly US INS) allowed the parent(s) to become legal residents based upon the citizenship of the child.

However... according to the Immigration and Nationality Act (Links will be added once the uscis.gov site is working correctly again), which is the controlling law over immigration in the United States, a child CANNOT sponsor his/her parents until the age of 21!

So what law do the immigration authorities quote when they offer to let illegal immigrants who have their "anchor baby"? Well, there is none that I have ever heard or seen, it all seems to be the "Well, it would be cruel and inhumane to separate a child from their parents by deporting the parents!"

In my humble opinion, this is WRONG! The parents have no legal status in our country, regardless of the citizenship of their child. The child has no "ties" to this country, other than the fact that his/her parents were breaking the law when the baby was born, and thus, there is nothing tying the child to this country. Thus, why can the parents not TAKE THE ANCHOR BABY back to their country of origin? The family would not be separated, the child would still be an American Citizen (eligible to immigrate to the US legally after 21 years), however, the parents who VIOLATED the law, would not receive unfair benefit from their illegal action.

Some people than ask, "But, wouldn't that be cruel to someone who couldn't/wouldn't take the baby back with them?" This is a choice of the babies parents! If the parents choose to abandon their child here in the US, than there are agencies available that can take appropriate custody of the child for care and/or adoption. This is not the best solution, however, this would only be based upon the abandonment of the child by the parents.

Once again, let's NOT reward people for breaking the law, let's punish them.

The Law of Eminent Domain

At the heart of the law of Eminent Domain, and the battles which have erupted, especially since 06/23/05 when the Supreme Court ruled in the case of "Kelo et al V. City of New London Connecticut et al", is the Fifth Amendment.

If you listen to talk radio (which I do a lot of), you have probably heard of many cases of cities now taking over peoples homes and small businesses in favor of bigger businesses/developers. Simply to raise their tax base.

We currently have a case going on in the city of Topeka, KS where an out-of-town development group has joined forces with a local commercial real estate agent, who (in my opinion only) is one of the slimier people I've ever had the displeasure to meet, to redevelop a small portion of Topeka known as College Hill.

The developers have acquired all the appropriate properties in the area, with the exception of two properties, Oscar's, which is a small bar, and Jerry's Bike Shop, which amazingly enough, is a bike shop. The owner of these two properties (also, Jerry owns his house which is located behind his shop) have refused the offers from the developers, stating that it was not sufficient money to cause them to want to move.

The offers ARE very nice, and if someone were to make a similar offer to me on property which I own, I would probably take it.

Since I have paid particular attention to the bike shop, I will focus specifically on it, and from here on it, if I say something like, "The Property", I am talking specifically about Jerry's house and his bike shop.

The County has assessed the property at about $74,000. The developer assessed the property at about $100,000. The developer has made an offer of $300,000 for the property, and is also willing to provide a set of similar (slightly bigger to tell the truth) properties, located just outside the development area. Jerry has made a counteroffer of $1.8MM, which is to cover relocating and reopening his business/house, and also a significant amount of money to help finance his retirement, in case the business fails in its new home (hmmm, it's just across the street from his current location).

However, here is where the usage of eminent domain is wrong.

The developer has gone whining to the city, that if this situation isn't resolved quickly, they will have to cancel the development project, because it would mean that they could not have the apartments open in time for the Fall, 2007 opening of our local University (Washburn University, about 2 blocks from the development).

So, the city is now threatening to use Eminent Domain to take these final properties, to turn over to the developer, so they can get the $25MM investment, and remove a section of older and run down buildings from the city.

In this case, the usage of Eminent Domain, as decided in the earlier mentioned supreme court decision is not appropriate, nor is it legal.

This is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution, and there is no other way in which to justify the usage of Eminent Domain. Also, it is wrong. When you have to decide between right and wrong, and it is clear cut that this is wrong, you simply don't do it.

To Jerry: I hope that you can reach an acceptable value, as the city really does need this development.

To the Developers: I hope that you quit dreaming that people will bend over backwards for your money.

To the City: Keep your nose out of other peoples business. Make the city safe, don't get involved in private business matters!

Who am I and what do I stand for?

I have travelled throughout the world and have seen many miraculous things and many heartwrenching things throughout those travels.

I have been rich, and I have been poor. I've worked for the big bucks, and also for near minimum wage. I've been a member of the majority population, I've been a member of a minority population.

I have had many successes, and I have had many failures.

I have lived everywhere from the tropical jungle of South America to the moderate to cold temperatures of Japan.

I have lived in a fairly closed society, I have lived in an extremely open society.

I have rubbed shoulders with the rich and the famous, I have spent the night sleeping in cars to avoid having to sleep on the homeless streets.

I have been to war, and know that at the end of the day, there is a right and a wrong worth fighting for. I don't regret it.

But the most important thing that has happened, is that regardless of the experience, I have learned from it.

The postings on this blog are my opinion of life, liberty, happiness and/or the pursuit thereof. I figure that very few people will agree with me on everything, however, I would also be willing to think that everyone will agree with me on something.

If you agree, let me know, if you don't, let me know. But please, if you don't agree, don't simply tell me that I am wrong, please teach me how I am wrong.