Today on CNN Newsroom

The latest news and information from around the world. Also connect with CNN through social media. We want to hear from you.
January 28th, 2011
09:36 AM ET

Citizenship of Kids Born to Illegal Immigrants

Should children born to illegal immigrants in the US be allowed citizenship?

A bill being introduced in Arizona challenges the citizenship of children born in the United States whose parents are illegal immigrants.  Click here to check out the story.

Post your comments here.  We're going to use them on the show today.


Filed under: Ali Velshi • Anchors
soundoff (35 Responses)
  1. txleadhead

    Strip them of their citizenship. They don't deserve it anyway. Then deport them with their illegal parents. We are going broke to support those who shouldn't be here. Let's borrow money from China to pay for Mexican Nationals. We look like suckers in the eyes of the World. It churns this Veteran's guts.

    January 28, 2011 at 11:34 am |
  2. Midwestgirl

    Their children shouldn't be granted citizenship due to one statment that is constantly overlooked in the Constitution: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". They must be born in the U.S. AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof. They obviously aren't if their parents are not citizens of this country.

    January 28, 2011 at 1:18 pm |
  3. Kita Mitchell

    Let us talk plainly without PC pandering muddying the waters of logic and reason. We could address unemployment, education, and our social entitlement system and make instant progress although it will not be easy. By saying "NO" to amnesty! First, make ALL employers use e-verify. This would free-up millions of jobs nationwide. And we can work on forcing welfare recipients to "GET A JOB!!!" Lets help our people first. If our people are lazy and unproductive, we should rehabilitate them instead of replacing them.
    Second, Verify citizenship or permission to be in the US before you can go to school (K-College). This would reduce the size of our overcrowded classrooms and eliminate a large part of our lowest performance ethnic demographic according to the Dept. of Educations progress report. Last year my son attended half of the school year without a geometry textbook because of a shortage while two illegal's were issued theirs from the start.
    Third, no more social safety nets and citizen privileges for illegal's and their children who were born here. "Anchor babies" are not citizens. That law was written more than a century ago and the authors of that bill, as well as the later supreme court ruling, could not have foreseen the problems we face today. It needs to be revised. The argument would be similar for gun control advocates. Think about it.

    January 28, 2011 at 1:24 pm |
  4. unnica

    This is quite a complicated debate and one which in the absence of federal action to fix the problem of "illegal" immigration really does deserve a hearing in the supreme court. Let me disclose my own background as readers may believe it to have some bearing on how I reason when approaching this problem. I am the son of immigrants from Nicaragua who arrived in the US "illegally" during the revolution and guerrilla insurgency (sponsored by the US) in our native country. I was born in Nicaragua; I am now a US citizen. I hold dual citizenship. I live in a border state, Texas.
    I would say that there is a problem in so far as the law is being broken but let's look at the pro's and con's of the admittedly massive immigration that's taken place from Mexico and Central America in the last 30 or so years. Many ii's (illegal immigrants) do jobs that Americans simply do not do nor aspire to do whether because of low wages or low status, never the less these jobs are essential to the country's economy. This economic contribution may be countered by the fact that billions of dollars are sent back to countries of origin each year. This is money that is not spent in the US and "escapes" taxation and investment in the US.
    The offspring of illegal immigrants are in my personal view very dynamic economic contributors. We grow up more often poor than not and we are infused with a sense and need to "make it", do our families proud, as well as be wealthy and successful. I would guess that this assertion can be backed up statistically; again this is a debate that needs to occur openly and without the emotional charge that so frequently arises.

    January 28, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
  5. Earnest T Bass

    Mr txleadhead. Amen man you said it all! Right on. By the way has the boarder been closed yet? You know the one Mr Bush 2 borrowed money from China for?

    January 28, 2011 at 3:10 pm |
  6. Clement Johnson

    No they should not. Why is this an issue anyway. Show me 10 countries that have this policy.
    America has a kind heart. Try to help a nation and eventually the nation will insist on your kindness as a right. The politicians and the news media started this in the early 1800's by changing US policy instead of demanding Mexican action. Who pays for this; the normal American citizen pays. I say, why are you asking me? The news media and politicians created this, you fix it.

    January 28, 2011 at 4:21 pm |
  7. Clement Johnson

    To: unnica
    I here jobs Americans just won't do. That is a lie and pushed by another government and media hype. First of all it is not jobs Americans won't do it is jobs Americans can't do mainly because these jobs require spanish speakers. How many American kids and adults are out of work or can't maintain their income with 1 job. When did all farms in America get serviced by immigrants?
    How did this immigrant farm thing happen anyway. Well in the 70's banks, politicians and of course the news media decided corporations could profit better from the exported farm goods being exported to Russia and China. Banks started denying loans to family owned farmers. Loans they backed for 100's of years. The family owned farm was bought out by corporations. Corporations major goal is the bottom line. The corporate farms started hiring immigrants to work farms that use to be worked by the local community. City's got taxes and the people got crime, welfare and a drain on the emergency room. Corporate farms declined so the immigrants need other forms of employment. So trucking which use to be the American staple middle income employment, got taken over by immigrants. Now we have NAFTA.
    Jobs Americans won't do. I say industries that failed the American people while asking us at the same time to buy their products.
    American is not a color, race or nationality. It is a right of citizenship. The world community has the right to try to be American. Not just South Americans. Unnica, America can move forward on this issue and even more important issues. It use to mean something to be American. But American is different to someone who came here to find work. Oh by the way, where do Americans go when our economy is in trouble? We fix it

    January 28, 2011 at 4:44 pm |
  8. philanthro

    I came here as a student visa 5 years ago.I got marrried two years back. My wife and i are staying here legally in student VISA . We have five 5 months old baby.
    I just want to know what every american thinks about our situation . Should my baby be granted us citizenships or not??
    I have been hearing lots of rhetoric about the situation and i feel very disappointed to hear it again and again. I could never imagined any american(even some politicians) would talk about such rhetoric things(such as drop and leave, anchor baby, multiplying like rats etc..).I know there are few other people in the same situation as me who would like to know about it. Please reply me.

    thanks

    January 28, 2011 at 4:55 pm |
  9. L Ragab

    What kind of question is that? The law states that anyone born in the US is automatically a US citizen. You don't like it? Change the law.

    January 29, 2011 at 9:30 am |
  10. vitha

    we cannot blame others when this country was doing well the immigrants were here they are not to be blamed for what wall street did it was greed. The immigrants are needed to maintain our way living and costs. right now we pay around $3 dollars for a loaf of bread because the farmers are using immigrants to work the land and harvest . if you and i replaced the immigrants a loaf of bread will be around $8-10 are we willing to pay those prices. we cannot compete in the international markets like we did in the past because we demand more wages the production cost are higher.if we care so much about this country lets take those low paying jobs i am sure a farmer would like to hire an american willing to work for the same wage as an illegal immigrant so we could keep our cost of living the same . No but we are too needy and we need more money we need a better life style. isn't this the same thing the illegal immigrants doing with low wages YES but they are not complaining .
    so if you care so much about your country Put your boots on get to work for the same price an illegal worker is paid so we could get this country back on track and STOP blaming illegal immigrants for our failures. Stop treating these Humans like a disease or animals as they oil the engine this country runs on we need them just like they need us.

    January 29, 2011 at 10:20 am |
  11. Kate in OH

    Here's a suggestion: Let's deport descendants of illegal immigrants in order based on how long it has been since the immigrant in question arrived. My family name arrived on this continent at Jamestown during the early colonial period, so I guess I'll be one of the first ones to leave.

    January 30, 2011 at 8:05 pm |
  12. Mercy

    Revoking citizenship to "anchor babies" will not solve the problem. Illegals will continue to come here because there is better opportunity here. If we want to stop their infiltration, we have to
    1. Help the economic growth of the countries where these illegals are coming from. Stop buying illegal drugs so the drug trade will dry up and legitimate enterprises can start up!

    2. Stop providing government "nanny" services to ALL people. Let the non-profits take over the task of caring for the poor. Because, as Americans, we would find it unconscionable to allow a child (even if he is illegal) to starve to death within our borders. But our sense of justice is hurt when we think that our TAX money is being spent on the "undeserving."

    Last comment: Anyone who says we should only provide education (K-12) to legal residents is not thinking it through. The illegal children will be here, whether they go to school or not. Without schools, those illegal children will probably find other activities to "keep them busy." Think drugs, crimes, gangs and etc.

    January 31, 2011 at 12:24 pm |
  13. David P Vernon

    No Arizona statue can override the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that even the children of Japanese residents who were barred from applying for citizenship are citizens when born inside the jurisdiction of the United States. To change this, one must amend the Constitution – and the votes to do that simply are not there – not even in the Arizona legislature,. much less in the legislatures of 3/4 of the States! Mexican women have been sneaking into Texas to give birth for more than 100 years – what is the big deal? Note that having an American baby does not entitle a family to apply for green cards – there is, in fact, no such thing as an "anchor baby"!

    January 31, 2011 at 3:52 pm |
  14. M.J.

    philanthro: Your child should share the same status you do, legal US resident, but not citizen. If you and your wife apply for citizenship prior to it turning 18, and are accepted, then it too should be granted citizenship. When he/she turns 18 they can apply for citizenship if they want and be fast-tracked as long as there are no criminal convictions. As citizens of another country you do not enjoy the full rights afforded citizens of the US, you cannot vote, run for office, and even if naturalized, cannot run for or be President. Only a citizen of this country is fully and truly subject to all her laws and rights so only the child of a citizen should be automatically granted birthright citizenship. Now, if you had married a US citizen I can completely agree that as long as you are here legally then the child should be a citizen, but if even one parent is here illegally then the child is a citizen of the country the illegal is from.

    January 31, 2011 at 7:06 pm |
  15. Sherri

    I read that the U.S. is one of the only countries to automatically bestow citizenship on babies born of non-citizens.
    Vitha, the question is ILLEGAL immigrants. Not all immigrants. People who come here legally are fine. We have no problem with them. I worked with students who came for schooling. They came here legally after jumping through hoops. But, there are those who come illegally. Then demand services, and accommodations and drain the economy. As for helping Mexico develop, I think we have done enough and they STILL keep pouring over the border. And I have heard their president tell them to keep doing it. Why doesn't he want his people to stay in their own country? That seems odd. Illegal – get out. Period

    February 1, 2011 at 12:11 am |
  16. Babette Wilcox

    We need to find a lawful answer to the immigration issue. First, we need to develope a legal pathway for illegal immigrants in the US who want to become US citizens. Amnesty is not an answer because it bypasses current law and all those who have properly applied for citizenship and who are waiting.Then we need to hire enough US immigration workers to process people who apply. The waiting period for people seeking citizenship is ridiculous. It is an outrage.

    February 1, 2011 at 1:20 pm |
  17. sharla musabih

    yes!
    the foundation of the U.S.A is based on immigration human rights and freedom, just because some of us are settled doesn't mean that the U.S wasnt a place of promise and oppertunity for all of our family members in days gone by! We all came over to this country via boat at one point and we are the desendents of "wet backs" as the saying goes!
    Shame on all of us for becoming arrogant and heartless!
    all creatures survival is dependant on movement! (birds fly south for survival)
    boarders are meant as a security not to imprison those who need to survive!

    February 1, 2011 at 1:21 pm |
  18. Dave Dittman

    If he has not already done so, the President needs to tell Mubarak behind the scene to step down. He also should tell him that if Mubarak does not resign in 24 hours, President Obama will publically call for Mubarak's resignation.

    February 1, 2011 at 1:27 pm |
  19. David

    Why would we give citizenship to illegal aliens. Both the children and the parents are here illegally. We focus too much on others and how they feel. What about American citizens. We give money to Mexico and other countries, when are we going to take care of our own. I think Arizona is right on the money, it the U.S. government that's crazy. Maybe I'll move to Arizona and support their state. All ILLEGAL aliens should be forced out of our country.

    February 1, 2011 at 2:19 pm |
  20. Peg Paterson

    I feel any child of an American citizen should also be a citizen.
    Children of illegal immigrants should not be granted citizenship because he or she was born here.

    But I also feel this should only apply to future biths. If a child has been here for years and part of our society, then I don't feel right in deporting them to the parent's birthplace where they would be a fish out of water.

    Since we have not been actively correcting this problem in the past, put a citizenship stipulation to cover those children being raised here and are acting like good American citizens.

    February 1, 2011 at 2:27 pm |
  21. ron lang

    Many of these children have & will serve in our military. They are citizens of the USA. Their parents have entered, the USA, illegally because we have made it easy with our open borders. Close the borders & provide them with a program to become nationalized citizens. After the borders are closed, anyone entering illegally will be sent back to their country.

    February 1, 2011 at 4:06 pm |
  22. Basil Marasco

    We hear "CLOSE OUR BORDERS" but nothing is being done to accomplish this. I am a construction Manager who has been working on a project(for over a year) that WILL stop the intrusion of these illeagles coming into our country. But as of today I have no idea who to present it to since most polititions are only intrested in Raising Money and working on thier next electon speech.My project would put a stop to these people crossing our border for entry and also while stopping these wetbacks from coming in it would give the the US the time to round up the millions of illeagles who are already here (who won't be able to get out except by being escorted out). . My project insures NO WAY IN and NO WAY OUT until escorted out by the government police There are only so many legal ports of entry into the US so why not make these the only places. Suggestions Please.

    February 3, 2011 at 10:18 am |
  23. Anon E. Miss

    I think babies whose parents took them to the US and cared so much deserve to stay =)

    February 3, 2011 at 8:27 pm |
  24. Carol

    Many Americans, myself included until now, are not aware of the big business associated with illegal immigrants and the game played with their lives. I am surprised that investigative reporters have not zeroed in on this. The illegal immigrants in our area are issued fake social security numbers, sometimes fake names, are paid approximately $7.25 to $8.00 per hour, FICA, Medicare, and state tax is deducted from their checks and sent to our government. They are working 6 days per week, 12 hours per day working and living in situations most Americans would not. They go from their living quarters to their job only! It is one step above slavery. Their money is sent back to their families to their country of origin and does not reach local economies. They are chosen well and are not drug individuals. I beg the American people to take a good look at the big picture of this and they will stop blaming the immigrants for our bad economy. They are paying into a system they will never be able to recover any financial gain from and have no medical support if they get hurt or sick. Of course, the southern border between Mexico and the U.S. is not secure. Why would it be?

    February 7, 2011 at 12:19 pm |
  25. ruth

    I think our system is seriously flawed. It is really a no-brainer to get this right. We need to;
    – verify status of potential employees – no exceptions. If they cannot
    produce papers of their status they will not be employed
    and
    – immigration service has to be notified – Case closed.

    February 7, 2011 at 1:40 pm |
  26. Callie

    This is a very complicated issue on so many levels. I agree that they should stop granting citizenship just because they have child that is born here. So many of these people come here and have there babies and they don't even have health insurance so the burden is placed on everyone and then we wonder why health care costs and insurance is so expensive.

    .As for jobs, yes most of them work in service type jobs. How many times have you gone to a drive through window and you can't understand them and they can't understand you? I know it's more times than I can begin to count.

    My grandparents arrived here and went through the process at Ellis Island before moving on. Something has got to be done to make it fair to everyone.

    February 15, 2011 at 1:23 pm |
  27. Joan Buchanan

    Children of 2 illegal parents should not be granted citizenship. I think politicians need to stop worrying about the 20% hispanic vote and start dealing with the immigration issue at face value. I was around for the first round of Amnesty under Reagan. It didn't work then and its not going to work now. If the children were not granted automatic citizenship, were not provided a free education, free health care, etc. then the parents would head home so their children could go to school and be cared for. Enough talk of they just want a better life for their children...if you take away the incentives, they will go home voluntarily cause after all, they only want a better life for their children, right?

    February 15, 2011 at 1:37 pm |
  28. Chris

    NO!!!!!! They should NOT be allowed citizenship!!!!!

    February 15, 2011 at 9:12 pm |
  29. Tanya

    If these present day Illegals do apply for legal immigration
    but investigators do a background income check of applicant
    using the aliases used prior
    (a felony) and find that they have been under reporting their
    income (Tax Evasion) that should be grounds for deportation
    and NO POSSIBLITY FOR LEGAL IMMIGRATION...

    February 16, 2011 at 3:45 am |
  30. Penny

    No, I don't think they should be granted citzenship. They are taking advantage of our country and not learning the language. I'm having difficulty finding stable work, because I don't know Spanish. That's how out of hand this has gotten in some areas. No Other country allows this and it's really stupid to encourage illegal activity.

    Times have changed and the law was never meant to be taken advantage of like this. Shameful to see what is happening.

    March 14, 2011 at 12:06 am |
  31. Beto

    Hello everybody my name is Beto as you can see but let me get to the point I think all of you guys should stop complaining because to tell you the truth we are all children of immigrants alright we took this land from the Native Americans after we committed a genocide and killed millions. So if you are not Native American keep your mouth shut!

    March 26, 2011 at 5:19 pm |
  32. out

    A common misconception is that the Constitution through the Fourteenth Amendment confers citizenship upon everyone born in the United States whether or not they were born to an illegal alien. Actually, the Constitution itself does not provide citizenship to those born of illegal parents; the Supreme Court only said it did in an 1898 decision known as ‘U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark’, and it is politically correct to accept this Supreme Court decision while ignoring others.

    The problem is that the court majority in the Wong Kim Ark case, as is so often today, ‘made law’ according to their personal beliefs and not what those that wrote the Constitution (or in this case, the 14th Amendment) actually intended at the time it was written. Justice Horace Gray, who wrote the majority decision in the Wong Kim Ark case, reveals exactly what the majority was up to by avoiding discussion about the intention of the clause by the two Senators most responsible for the language of the Fourteenth Amendment, Senators Jacob M. Howard and Lyman Trumbull.

    It is clear the court majority in this case recognized the only reasonable way to come to the conclusion they wanted was to ignore the recorded legislative history left behind by the writers of the amendment. Justice Gray acknowledged this when he wrote:

    "Doubtless, the intention of the congress which framed, and of the states which adopted, this amendment of the constitution, must be sought in the words of the amendment, and (sic)[but] the debates in congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words."

    Justice John Paul Stevens disagreed with this attempt by the Wong Kim Ark majority to rewrite the Constitution:

    "A refusal to consider reliable evidence of original intent in the Constitution is no more excusable than a judge's refusal to consider legislative intent."

    Justice Gray and the court majority refused to consider both the original intent and legislative history behind the words because they knew it would be fatal to their pre-determined intent of reversing what Congress had inserted into the US Constitution by the fourteenth amendment so they avoided what senators Howard and Trumbull wrote and said.

    Why did Justice Gray avoid the legislative history and the original intent of those writing the 14th amendment?

    Well the first major hurdle Senator Howard presented to the court majority in this case is that he specifically declared the clause to be by "virtue of natural law" and national law only recognized citizenship by birth to those who were not subject to some other foreign power. The Senator also stated when he introduced the amendment:

    “The clause [the citizenship clause section 1] specifically excludes all persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, and persons who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

    It seems clear that the amendment only applies to American citizens (natural law), regardless of their race – which is exactly what was intended. Remember, the amendment was written after the Civil War with the intent to acknowledge the citizenship of those who had been slaves, not foreigners subject to national laws of other countries and not already citizens of the United States.

    The court majority had an even bigger problem to impose their will on American citizens because Senator Howard also said in May, 1868, that the

    "Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country." *

    Senator Trumbull, the co-author, additionally presents a problem for the court majority by declaring:

    "The provision is, that ‘all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.’ That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.' What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?' Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means."

    Sen. Howard followed that up by stating that:

    "The word 'jurisdiction,' as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."

    Illegal aliens and visitors do not enjoy the same quality of jurisdiction as a citizen of the United States. Can an alien be tried for Treason against the United States? Senator Howard clearly intended that the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" does not apply to anyone other than American citizens.

    The writer, John A. Bingham, of the 14th amendment’s first section, considered the proposed national law on citizenship as

    "simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..."

    Ironically, the Supreme Court had already decided the meaning of the 14th amendment's citizenship clause before the Wong Kim Ark case, and unlike the majority in the Wong Kim Ark court, did consider the intent and meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction”. In the Slaughterhouse cases [Slaughterhouse Cases Butchers' Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughterhouse Co. (1873)] the court noted that

    "[t]he phrase, 'subject to its jurisdiction' was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

    Even the dissenting minority in the Slaughterhouse cases affirmed that the citizenship clause was designed to ensure that all persons born within the United States were both citizens of the United States and the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power.

    Another Supreme Court decision [Elk v. Wilkins (1884)] correctly determined that

    "subject to the jurisdiction"of the United States required "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

    America's own naturalization laws from the very beginning never recognized children born to aliens to be anything other than aliens if the parents had not declared their allegiance to the United State – a sure sign that the framers intended children under national law followed the citizenship of their father until he had become naturalized.

    Also of interest, Justice Fuller, chief justice of the court in the Wong Kim Ark case, said,

    “The words 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the amendment, were used as synonymous with the words 'and not subject to any foreign power.”

    He was absolutely correct.

    Considering both the legislative and language history behind the citizenship clause (14th Amendment, Section 1) – and the courts own stated objective in reaching the conclusion they did while also taking into account two prior Supreme Court holdings – leaves the Wong Kim Ark ruling completely worthless. The decisions in the Slaughterhouse and Elk cases are still the only controlling case law that is fully supported by the history and language behind the citizenship clause as found in the first section of the 14th amendment, and it should be so today.

    *14th Amendment

    “Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    June 28, 2012 at 3:00 am |
  33. out

    HARGILL, Texas - A father and two sons shot at a federal immigration agent parked outside their home along the Texas border this week because they were afraid someone was going to break in, a relative told a newspaper.

    U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agent Kelton Harrison was shot in the back early Tuesday, when prosecutors say Pedro Alvarez and his sons, ages 18 and 16, fired at Harrison's vehicle and chased the agent as he sped away. Prosecutors say Harrison had been watching for an anticipated drug deal. His condition is improving.

    July 8, 2012 at 3:58 am |
  34. Hassan

    How on earth can my explanation of the California mess have not merit? That's their tax code; it's stlognry biased to drive down tax rates, and when taxes go down, the government has less money to do government stuff. Meanwhile, they pass a 3-strikes law that loads up their prisons with people who would not normally be there.And I don't think I'm overlooking statistics; look at that Wikipedia page, you get dueling statistics, and they're unclear, because they blend legal and illegal immigrants. One cites a 7.4% wage cut for workers without a high school education, they other says that immigrant workers (both kinds) RAISE wages for the rest of us by 4%. I am not sure what to make of this, except that those lacking a high school education , is a minority of all workers, and 7.4% is not chickenfeed, but it's not 20% either.And what I conclude from this is, how the heck are you so sure that this is THE PROBLEM that must be solved? I don't get it. Besides which, the rate at which we deport people is up since Obama was elected. This should increase your happiness, right?And by safety net, I mean things like unemployment, which we've got (could be better), and if we had it, universal health care. If people lose their jobs, especially because of economic shifts resulting from trade-related treaties, these are the sort of things we ought to do to ensure that nobody loses much (presumably, we would never sign a treaty that was a net loss for the country as a whole.) The Europeans are better at this than we are.And understand, I am happy to increase border security and severely ding employers who hire illegally. What I object to, is taking a kid who had no choice in whether to come here or not, who grew up here and soaked up our culture, and then, telling them that they should be punished for this.

    November 1, 2012 at 4:10 am |
  35. Rod

    It is a needed change. It is a clarification that must be made.

    July 8, 2014 at 9:58 am |

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 19,829 other followers