gbaji wrote:
They win by arguing that separating the mother and the child represents a hardship on the child here in the US
Nope. "In the past, the courts have not placed much weight on the idea of separation; therefore, the first argument of hardship due to separation is not generally argued at great length to the court. It is unlikely that a parent will choose to separate from a child, and the court leaves the choice between the hardship of separation and the hardship of return to the home country to the parent."
Hardship due to separation is not often used because the courts aren't swayed by it. If it's a "hardship" for the child to not be with you, you can take the child with. In fact, this is what usually happens. Obviously there are hardship cases that get decided in favor of the parents receiving a waiver or visa but they are not (from what I can tell) anything but a minority of cases even in cases involving a citizen child.
Quote:
Joph. Even if we assumed that 100% of all parents of every single anchor baby was deported and that the existence of their US citizen child would provide them no unfair benefit nor place any greater strain on the immigration system (absurd assumptions, but lets accept them for the sake of argument), there would still be the point of the massive amount of welfare and food stamps being paid out to provide for those children, which would not have to be paid if we deported the children with those parents.
The children often are deported with their parents. That was cited earlier when it says that "The policy behind allowing citizen children to be constructively deported is to prevent the creation of a loophole in U.S. immigration law". It is legal because the child can return later and assert their citizenship at that time.
If that was your best argument for a Constitutional amendment, you've wasted everyone's time.
Quote:
Clearly, this is a problem
No.
Edited, Aug 2nd 2010 10:28pm by Jophiel
