Posted on May 20, 2015
Court ruling on immigration could upset Administration policy. What do you think about the issue being decided?
2.47K
15
9
2
2
0
Thanks to a little-watched court case in California, the Obama administration’s immigration policy faces a shake-up next week—and the court’s ruling could reverberate in the 2016 presidential campaign.
At issue is whether it’s legal to essentially lock up women and children who’ve crossed the border illegally, part of the administration’s response to last summer’s unaccompanied minors crisis. Lawyers for some of these families sued the government, and last month, a U.S. District judge in Los Angeles issued a tentative ruling, a summary of which was obtained by Newsweek, stating that the administration policy violates a settlement in a 1997 immigration case, Flores v. Meese.
Obama’s detention and deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants remains a sore spot for immigrant rights and Latino activists, even after the president granted a reprieve, via executive order, to millions who came to the United States as children and to those who have children who were born here and thus are American citizens. The practice of holding thousands of women and their children—it’s just mothers and their kids in these facilities, most of them fleeing dire circumstances in Central America— in fortress-like compounds in Texas and Pennsylvania, some for months on end, has prompted a particularly strong backlash.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/court-ruling-on-immigration-could-rock-obama-2016-race/ar-BBjYw28
At issue is whether it’s legal to essentially lock up women and children who’ve crossed the border illegally, part of the administration’s response to last summer’s unaccompanied minors crisis. Lawyers for some of these families sued the government, and last month, a U.S. District judge in Los Angeles issued a tentative ruling, a summary of which was obtained by Newsweek, stating that the administration policy violates a settlement in a 1997 immigration case, Flores v. Meese.
Obama’s detention and deportation of hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants remains a sore spot for immigrant rights and Latino activists, even after the president granted a reprieve, via executive order, to millions who came to the United States as children and to those who have children who were born here and thus are American citizens. The practice of holding thousands of women and their children—it’s just mothers and their kids in these facilities, most of them fleeing dire circumstances in Central America— in fortress-like compounds in Texas and Pennsylvania, some for months on end, has prompted a particularly strong backlash.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/court-ruling-on-immigration-could-rock-obama-2016-race/ar-BBjYw28
Posted in these groups: 
Immigration
National Security
Immigration National Security
Edited 9 y ago
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 3
3
3
0
We need to amend the laws that allow someone to cross the border, legally or illegally, and give birth to a ready made and recognized US Citizen no questions asked. IMHO, a child born in this country should not be afforded a legal status greater than that of their parents. This loophole only adds fuel to the debate because how can you send the parents packing if the child is a US citizen by birth right?
Just curious, for SMs serving overseas, if they have a child born in another country is that child automatically a citizen of the country they are born in? If the SMs are US citizens, are the children afforded dual citizenship?
Just curious, for SMs serving overseas, if they have a child born in another country is that child automatically a citizen of the country they are born in? If the SMs are US citizens, are the children afforded dual citizenship?
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
Indeed the anchor laws was a big loophole and the subsequent commentary that they are just women and children. This stuff (I hope) is not falling on deaf ears. That the party of the people is exposed for what they are. Users! Now Hillary, release those damn emails ASAP.
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca Generally speaking, most countries do not have the same Birthright Citizenship laws that the US does. The last I looked it up, it was US & Canada that used the land model, as opposed to the blood model (primarily). For US Citizens born abroad, that is dependent upon the SOFA for each country associated with.
But, keep in mind, this is not a "loophole." This is our actual law. The US grants citizenship to those born within our borders, and it has literally always been that way. With rare exception, we don't have US National & US Citizen divide.
The issue we run into however is that immigrants come to BETTER places. We'd have this issue regardless of whether we had birthright citizenship or not. In this hemisphere, this is the nation you would flee to for a better life. The standard of living, at its worst is generally so much higher.
But, keep in mind, this is not a "loophole." This is our actual law. The US grants citizenship to those born within our borders, and it has literally always been that way. With rare exception, we don't have US National & US Citizen divide.
The issue we run into however is that immigrants come to BETTER places. We'd have this issue regardless of whether we had birthright citizenship or not. In this hemisphere, this is the nation you would flee to for a better life. The standard of living, at its worst is generally so much higher.
(1)
(0)
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca
I agree Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS it is our law and the illegals' loophole for gaining a foothold. I have no objection to legal immigration but when you add the birth right in as leverage to not do anything about the illegal parents, that's where I have the issue.
(0)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca Symptom, not cause though.
What we run into is a "least harm" scenario.
I'll work under the assumption we agree you can't deport an American Citizen. So you have an infant, or young American, with no support structure. We can't force them out. Their support structure is their parents.
The issue is that they (the parents) are criminals. If we punish the parent, we punish the Citizen, who has committed no crime. That is counter to everything we are about as Americans. It's a catch-22.
So how do we handle that?
The problem (root) is that we "closed" the borders. Closing the borders created the problems. Opening the borders, will in theory fix the problem, "if" we can ensure that there appropriate legal mechanisms (taxation) in place.
So what do we do? Set up a Social Security Office at all points of entry. And when I say all, I mean ALL. Make it amazingly convenient to become a "resident alien" in the US. Make it simple. Don't reward deviant behavior. Make sure Uncle Sam gets his cut.
What we run into is a "least harm" scenario.
I'll work under the assumption we agree you can't deport an American Citizen. So you have an infant, or young American, with no support structure. We can't force them out. Their support structure is their parents.
The issue is that they (the parents) are criminals. If we punish the parent, we punish the Citizen, who has committed no crime. That is counter to everything we are about as Americans. It's a catch-22.
So how do we handle that?
The problem (root) is that we "closed" the borders. Closing the borders created the problems. Opening the borders, will in theory fix the problem, "if" we can ensure that there appropriate legal mechanisms (taxation) in place.
So what do we do? Set up a Social Security Office at all points of entry. And when I say all, I mean ALL. Make it amazingly convenient to become a "resident alien" in the US. Make it simple. Don't reward deviant behavior. Make sure Uncle Sam gets his cut.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
"whether it’s legal to essentially lock up women and children who’ve crossed the border illegally" And therein lies the conundrum this country can't seem to get past.
If it's illegal to cross the border it should be legal to detain and deport. THEIR "dire plight" in THEIR country is not OUR problem. We're dealing with our own citizens who have their own dire plights right here that we cant seem to fix.
If it's illegal to cross the border it should be legal to detain and deport. THEIR "dire plight" in THEIR country is not OUR problem. We're dealing with our own citizens who have their own dire plights right here that we cant seem to fix.
(3)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
You know Bob, if there was a sincere acknowledgement by the Mexican government of their own culpability I would be more sympathetic and then worrying about how it may affect the administration? That right there is telling because it seems that that is the main concern. Not the plight of women and children but the fact that some narcissistic leader got his feelings hurt. They did what they did and they hate being called out on it. It is the first time (essentially) that they have had their hands slapped and they are recalcitrant? Ha
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
and this is how different from the detainment and housing of women and children on GITMO back in 1995.
Answer: in 1995 they were held off U.S. mainland soil until their cases could be properly looked into and processed. I was there from 1995 to 1997. They were well treated, taken care of. If we didn't keep them somewhere until their cases are processed, what would happen to them? Where would they stay? How would they live? They come here with almost nothing and not knowing much of anything about what it takes to get anywhere in this country.
Would knowing that human traffickers (Modern Slavery scouts) on this side of the border look for these unfortunate people, who won't know any better, for exploitation help make the need for detention facilities clear?
The fact that so many were kids coming over alone makes it that much more important to not just send them off into the streets to fend for themselves until their cases are processed. I personally would have sent everyone of those kids back home as soon as they showed up. We don't have orphanages here and our foster care system, as it is, can't be used for this purpose. I remember the news about advertisements offering people money to take in these kids in the mid-west and other places. Whose idea was it to put these kids on auction to anyone that needed a live-in babysitter or house servant?
This is a very sore subject for me. Rant over.
Answer: in 1995 they were held off U.S. mainland soil until their cases could be properly looked into and processed. I was there from 1995 to 1997. They were well treated, taken care of. If we didn't keep them somewhere until their cases are processed, what would happen to them? Where would they stay? How would they live? They come here with almost nothing and not knowing much of anything about what it takes to get anywhere in this country.
Would knowing that human traffickers (Modern Slavery scouts) on this side of the border look for these unfortunate people, who won't know any better, for exploitation help make the need for detention facilities clear?
The fact that so many were kids coming over alone makes it that much more important to not just send them off into the streets to fend for themselves until their cases are processed. I personally would have sent everyone of those kids back home as soon as they showed up. We don't have orphanages here and our foster care system, as it is, can't be used for this purpose. I remember the news about advertisements offering people money to take in these kids in the mid-west and other places. Whose idea was it to put these kids on auction to anyone that needed a live-in babysitter or house servant?
This is a very sore subject for me. Rant over.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google