Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) "Anchor Baby" B.S. (Read 11038 times)
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43058
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
"Anchor Baby" B.S.
Aug 20th, 2015 at 6:35pm
Print Post  
I just heard Trump talking about "anchor babies'. There is no such thing.

Illegals must be deported, by law. If they have a baby who was born here, and is thus a citizen, they will be allowed to decide- do they want to leave their baby here, or take it with them?

If they choose to leave it here, it can be put up for adoption, which would be very easy except for government restrictions.

Should the parents of babies who are abandoned be given special special consideration for citizenship? No. They should be forever denied citizenship. Why would we want that sort of person in our country?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9813
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #1 - Aug 20th, 2015 at 7:13pm
Print Post  
Anchor babies are a thing because nobody wants to break up families. The law follows the masses, not the other way round. This is why I am an authoritarian. I believe the masses should follow the laws.

Weren't you just talking about how marvelous jury nullification is? Or at any rate, don't libertarians love that? That is what this is: The People having power. Who would rip mothers from their children in order to deport them? The public would be outraged, and the government decides, for whatever reason, to tread on eggshells around them.

But even so, babies must be supported by adult citizens. It's not fair for the babies to be citizens if their parents are not. This isn't even open borders, allowing everyone to be naturalised. This is allowing only the dependent to be naturalised. This is worse, speaking of the country as a whole, than open borders.

If you believe that a baby born here is automatically a citizen, you must let the mother stay. Ripping a child from its mother is aggression, even in the event that the mother decides the baby is to stay in America.

That's what you libertarians believe about choices. They're inexhaustible. They shouldn't come with consequences. You don't "have a choice" about paying sales tax because you can choose not to buy the product. The mother doesn't have a choice about having her baby taken from her just because she chose for it to stay.

And then what? What if she chooses for it to leave with her? Is it still a citizen? Does it get an absentee ballot? Does it get to vote on the manner of life where it does not live?
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43058
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #2 - Aug 21st, 2015 at 8:30am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Aug 20th, 2015 at 7:13pm:
Anchor babies are a thing because nobody wants to break up families.

The choice to enter the U.S. illegally was made by the parents, and the choice of either taking their baby with them, or not, is also completely up to the parents.

Yes, a child born in the U.S. is a citizen. If it is taken back to wherever with it's deported parents, it is free to return to the U.S. whenever it wants to, but it has no more claim on other citizens property than does any other American, that is none. So the child had better be prepared to work and support itself when it comes here as a citizen. If it chooses to remain an expatriate, it has all the rights and privileges of other expatriate citizens, and also the same duties and obligations.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9813
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #3 - Aug 21st, 2015 at 10:46pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 8:30am:
The choice to enter the U.S. illegally was made by the parents, and the choice of either taking their baby with them, or not, is also completely up to the parents.


She makes the choice that her baby stay. After that, you're denying her the choice to be with her baby.

Jeff wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 8:30am:
Yes, a child born in the U.S. is a citizen. If it is taken back to wherever with it's deported parents, it is free to return to the U.S. whenever it wants to, but it has no more claim on other citizens property than does any other American, that is none. So the child had better be prepared to work and support itself when it comes here as a citizen. If it chooses to remain an expatriate, it has all the rights and privileges of other expatriate citizens, and also the same duties and obligations.


So someone who comes here illegally should be able to obtain citizenship for their child through an illegal act? What about the one who stayed behind instead of breaking the law and asks politely that her child be an American citizen?

If I'm getting a big inheritance and I kill my parents to get it, I get squat instead. Because I broke the law. Because rewarding people for breaking the law is assumed to be foolish practice. At that point, why even have laws?
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Alan Jones
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2721
Joined: Apr 19th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #4 - Aug 22nd, 2015 at 2:13am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 10:46pm:
She makes the choice that her baby stay. After that, you're denying her the choice to be with her baby.

That's absurd.

The Opposition wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 10:46pm:
So someone who comes here illegally should be able to obtain citizenship for their child through an illegal act?

The child committed no illegal act.

The Opposition wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 10:46pm:
Because rewarding people for breaking the law is assumed to be foolish practice. At that point, why even have laws?

Again, the child broke no law. Notice how you're using the term "reward" to refer to a failure to punish an innocent person, just because the guilty parent doesn't want their innocent child to be punished. That's some pretty messed up logic.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43058
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #5 - Aug 22nd, 2015 at 9:35am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Aug 21st, 2015 at 10:46pm:
She makes the choice that her baby stay. After that, you're denying her the choice to be with her baby.

No, she can take it with her. Almost every mother will.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9813
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #6 - Aug 22nd, 2015 at 6:50pm
Print Post  
Alan Jones wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 2:13am:
That's absurd.


Really?

Mary makes the choice to buy a candy bar.
Mary makes the choice that her baby stay in the US.

Mary does not want to pay sales tax.
Mary does not want her baby taken away from her.

The government charges sales tax on the candy bar.
The government separates Mary and her baby.

Taking Mary's money was not voluntary from Mary.
Taking Mary's baby was not voluntary from Mary.

The government has committed aggression.

And I don't want to hear that the separation is just collateral damage from Mary's deportation. The effects must be considered. You can't deport her if she's fused to the pavement either.

Alan Jones wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 2:13am:
The child committed no illegal act.

Again, the child broke no law. Notice how you're using the term "reward" to refer to a failure to punish an innocent person, just because the guilty parent doesn't want their innocent child to be punished. That's some pretty messed up logic.


The child is not being punished, first and foremost, he's just not getting a reward.

Secondly, it doesn't even matter that the child was innocent. The mother wanted the reward - citizenship for her child - and she got it... by means of an illegal act.

Thirdly, you're trying to separate the parent and its child as if you can just count off the basic, innate desire for gene preservation being equivalent to self-preservation. A reward for the child is not too much different than a reward for the parent.

Suppose I'd been the one who deflated all those footballs last season's super bowl. (I am assuming everyone has heard of this.) Should Tom Brady be punished for my action, if I committed it unilaterally? Well libertarians say no. But the win that came from it is not a legitimate win. This sucks for the Patriots who might have won anyway, but the win they actually got was not a legitimate one.
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 43058
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #7 - Aug 22nd, 2015 at 8:17pm
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 6:50pm:
Mary does not want her baby taken away from her.

Everyone would rather see Mary take her baby with her when she's deported, but she can choose to abandon it if she wants. Mothers always have that option.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Alan Jones
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 2721
Joined: Apr 19th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #8 - Aug 23rd, 2015 at 2:16am
Print Post  
The Opposition wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 6:50pm:
Really?

Mary makes the choice to buy a candy bar.
Mary makes the choice that her baby stay in the US.

Mary does not want to pay sales tax.
Mary does not want her baby taken away from her.

The government charges sales tax on the candy bar.
The government separates Mary and her baby.

Taking Mary's money was not voluntary from Mary.
Taking Mary's baby was not voluntary from Mary.

I never said the separation was voluntary (although there is no "baby taking", there's a "Mommy taking"). The deportation, and any resulting separation, is obviously involuntary, as any penalty for a crime is. I said that your argument was absurd, see below.

The Opposition wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 6:50pm:
The government has committed aggression.

Maybe, but it has nothing to do with the baby. If the deportation is aggression, then logically it's aggression either way, baby or no baby.

The Opposition wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 6:50pm:
Secondly, it doesn't even matter that the child was innocent. The mother wanted the reward - citizenship for her child - and she got it... by means of an illegal act.

It certainly matters that the child is innocent, and the illegal act of the mother is completely irrelevant. It is you that has this completely backward.

The Opposition wrote on Aug 22nd, 2015 at 6:50pm:
Thirdly, you're trying to separate the parent and its child as if you can just count off the basic, innate desire for gene preservation being equivalent to self-preservation. A reward for the child is not too much different than a reward for the parent.

Failure to punish the innocent is very different from rewarding the guilty, even if they coincide.
« Last Edit: Aug 23rd, 2015 at 1:02pm by Alan Jones »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
The Opposition
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 9813
Joined: Apr 30th, 2014
Re: "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Reply #9 - Aug 23rd, 2015 at 11:28pm
Print Post  
Alan Jones wrote on Aug 23rd, 2015 at 2:16am:
I never said the separation was voluntary (although there is no "baby taking", there's a "Mommy taking"). The deportation, and any resulting separation, is obviously involuntary, as any penalty for a crime is. I said that your argument was absurd, see below.

Maybe, but it has nothing to do with the baby. If the deportation is aggression, then logically it's aggression either way, baby or no baby.


Separating a child from it's mother involuntarily is not aggression? Regardless of who's being taken from whom, somebody is the recipient of aggression because that somebody wants to stay with the other somebody.

You might have a case about the punishment for a crime, but the problem with Jeff's case is that the female is specifically allowed to take the baby with her. It's established that she has a right to her child. Now, just because she is given the choice for the child to stay, you can't retroactively remove the previous right.

Alan Jones wrote on Aug 23rd, 2015 at 2:16am:
It certainly matters that the child is innocent, and the illegal act of the mother is completely irrelevant. It is you that has this completely backward.


It's not completely irrelevant. That citizenship was acquired illegally, through an illegal act. It's not legitimate. Otherwise the rules don't matter.

Alan Jones wrote on Aug 23rd, 2015 at 2:16am:
Failure to punish the innocent is very different from rewarding the guilty, even if they coincide.


There is no punishment. It's not punishment to simply fail to award something.

And what happens if there's no one to take care of the baby? This doesn't happen to be an issue, but I hope we're talking about a free society, and if universalised, allowing people to cuckoo egg drop their babies into America en masse would soon cause a reaction in the other birds, even if it takes until the entire population is displaced for this to happen. Eventually no one will want to care for them. In that case, the choice for her baby to stay is a death sentence for the baby. Should she still have it?
  

This moral relativism of yours is exactly what lets government take this freedom, then that freedom, until we have lost them all.
-SnarkySack
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › "Anchor Baby" B.S.
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy