Image 01 Image 03

Townhall Tactic 2013: Why do you want to deport my daddy?

Townhall Tactic 2013: Why do you want to deport my daddy?

Exploiting children to achieve full amnesty — Actual question asked of Rep. Tom Reed: “Would you consider adopting one of those kids?”

I attended a townhall on Saturday, August 17, 2013 in Ithaca, NY, held by Republican Congressman Tom Reed (NY-23).

Reed is a “moderate” Republican. On immigration he’s against a pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens, but open to a pathway to citizenship for “Dreamers” and some manner of legal status for illegals.

I arrived fairly early for the 8 a.m. start time, and the first few rows already were taken up by pro-immigration reform supporters, carrying signs from the Amnesty International and a union group.

Questions had to be submitted in writing (although as it developed, there was a lot of give and take with the audience).

The first question was about immigration, and the moderator from Reed’s staff indicated that there were multiple questions along the same lines — what would happen to the American citizen children of undocumented immigrants if the parents were deported, and would Reed be willing to adopt such children.

“An estimated 5 million U.S. citizen children have an undocumented parent.  Guest worker programs do not keep those families together.  Do you believe these parents should be deported, and if so, do you believe their U.S. citizen kids should be put in foster care or get deported too.  Would you consider adopting one of those kids?

It was at once a brilliant and ridiculous question, supposing that the problem is enforcement of the law not the person who broke the law to come here and later had children. It also supposes that the parent would leave the child behind in the U.S. — what kind of parent would do that?

Reed appeared surprised by the question, and basically deflected it by joking that he’d have to run it by his wife and restating his position on amnesty:

The woman who asked the question was carrying an Amnesty International sign, and indicated that she advocated a comprehensive immigration reform that “preserve[s] family unity rather than tearing families apart” (video interview here).

There also was a tracker from the New York State Democratic Party filming the whole thing. I approached her after the session to ask whether she would be sharing the video with the campaign of Reed’s Emily’s List-backed opponent, Martha Robertson, but she declined to answer other than to insist that she was there on behalf of the NYS Democratic Party.

(Tom Reed Town Hall - NYS Democratic Party Tracker - wearing black)

(Tom Reed Town Hall – NYS Democratic Party Tracker – wearing black)

After the session I thought to myself, clearly the question was part of an organized effort, otherwise why would multiple people submit the same question? But I didn’t think it was that big a deal, maybe some local activists.

Then today I saw this article at BuzzFeed about a town hall held by Tennessee Republican Rep. Scott DesJarlais, Young Girl Tells Republican Congressman Her Father Is An Undocumented Immigrant:

“I have a dad, and he’s undocumented, what can I do so that he can stay with me,” the young girl asks.

“Thank you for being here and thank you for coming forward and speaking this is a big intimidating crowd and appreciate you coming forward and asking your question but the answer still kinda remains the same. We have laws, and we need to follow those laws and ya know, that’s where we’re at,” the Congressman said to applause.

That same video is being circulated by groups sites like Progressive Populist, which describes the little girl as “trembling” and asserts that she is in therapy due to the deportation:

Josie’s father is currently in deportation proceedings and she is undergoing therapy to deal with the anxiety.

Daily Kos also hyped that the girl was “scared.”

The light bulb went on.

It couldn’t be coincidence that in two townhalls, almost a thousand miles apart, similar questions were asked within days of each other meant to make the Republican look heartless to some young child for the possible break up of a family due to deportation of an illegal immigrant parent.

Some quick research revealed similar questions were asked at a town hall held by Paul Ryan, via JSOnline (via Hot Air):

Coming face-to-face with activists, immigrants and the children of undocumented immigrants, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan on Friday laid out his proposals to achieve a consensus in Congress and push through long-sought reform of the nation’s immigration laws….

…. Another “dreamer,” Valeria Ruiz, 17, of Racine, prodded the congressman on deportations that divide families.

According to the Facebook page of Voces de la Frontera, a Wisconsin anti-deportation group, the precise question to Ryan was:

 “What are you going to do to stop the separation of families, for those of us that live in fear everyday due to unjust deportations.”

Earlier in July, Representative Bob Goodlatte confronted similar questions at a town hall, via Bloomberg (h/t Dave Weigel):

A key House Republican in the debate over revising immigration policy said he would consider offering some young people brought illegally to the U.S. as children a chance to become citizens.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte made the comments at a town hall meeting last night in Lynchburg, Virginia, following a teary plea from a 16-year-old high school student whose parents are undocumented immigrants.

“People like you should be addressed,” Goodlatte told Dulce Elias, who said she came to the U.S. from Mexico as a 3-year-old. “Maybe for someone like you,” legislation “could include a path to citizenship,” he said.

Even where there is no direct question about deporting parents, groups like Think Progress are spinning Republican positions on immigration using the same theme of deporting parents:

Think Progress Deport Parents

There probably are many other examples that just don’t get picked up on the mainstream media — like my experience at Tom Reed’s town hall.

And sure enough, none of this is coincidence.

The “Don’t Deport My Dad” theme (and variations on it) has been developing for months.   For Father’s Day 2013, a Don’t Deport My Father website was launched by various community organizing groups.

Don't Deport My Dad Website - Imagine if your dad was arrested

There were vigils organized and rallies in various states, and even a Don’t Deport My Dad petition at  The ACLU highlighted the movement as did Church World Service.

The American Federation of Teachers is organizing groups to attend town halls on the issue of deportation of family members, and presumably other groups are as well.

There are numerous Don’t Deport My Dad type videos uploaded to YouTube, including this one uploaded a few days ago by the website Dream Activist:

Although Don’t Deport My Dad seems to predominate, there also are Don’t Deport My Mom activities too:

Don't Deport My Mom - Reuters

The theme is being picked up by Democratic Congressmen, like Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-Calif.), Children brought into United States illegally refuse to leave their parents  behind

It’s about the more than 5,000 U.S. citizen children who are currently living  with strangers in foster care because their parents were deported.

For their sake and for the sake of millions of other families, we need fair and  just immigration reform. Legislative proposals that separate Dreamers from their  parents and siblings are contrary to our American values and create an uncertain  future for these young people if their parents are deported.

There is a reason why Democrats and supportive groups which want all-out amnesty for everyone are so focused on the issue of family unification.

If it takes just a single person in a family having legal status to avoid deportation of the entire family, amnesty supporters will have found a back-door way to bring in almost everyone on “humanitarian” grounds. Indeed, the Senate Gang of 8 Bill has extensive family reunification provisions.

A fear on the Democratic side is that the position being espoused by Republicans of being sympathetic to the plight of “Dreamers” not only sounds too reasonable to too many people, it deprives Democrats of the sweeping amnesty they want.  Dave Weigel writes at

It’s a beautiful thing, the birth of a talking point. As they fan out across their districts taking questions from constituents, Republicans are largely avoiding the sort of chaos that dogged Democrats in 2009. (The surge of angry citizens at that summer’s town hall meetings dragged down support for Obamacare more than the party wanted to admit.) But they are encountering young, sympathetic people who ask whether the government wants to deport them. The answer is universal: Hey, you guys might OK….

From southeast Texas, in the district that was shored up for Rep. Blake Farenthold after redistricting:

“There are some people facing deportation that were brought here as very young children, they speak only English, they’re the victims,” he said. “We’ve spent all this money educating them, we need their productivity.”

The Congressman said he also supports an end to “birthright citizenship” — the notion that anyone born on U.S. soil is automatically a citizen — as a way of slowing down “chain immigration.”

That last bit isn’t part of the the messaging, but no matter— here’s how Republicans are trying to short-circuit the emotionally powerful appeal of DREAMers and young ‘uns.

Greg Sargent at The Washington Post, who is very attuned to the Democratic Party strategies, writes that the Republican tactic is unacceptable and a risk to Democrats:

The preferred option for some Republicans — create a path to citizenship only for the DREAMers — wouldn’t even begin to grapple with this question for the rest of the 11 million.

The Democrats want those 11 million new voters.  And if it means sending young children to townhalls to ask “Why do you want to deport my daddy?,” then that’s what will be done.

And there will be trackers at every event waiting for a Republican to flub the answer.

Related post: American Bridge to follow even more Republicans around in 2014 and 2016.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


The woman who asked the question was carrying an ACLU sign, and indicated that she advocated a comprehensive immigration reform that ”preserve[s] family unity rather than tearing families apart”

IOW – Amnesty for everybody!

    William A. Jacobson in reply to myiq2xu. | August 18, 2013 at 8:24 pm

    It was Amnesty Int’l sign. My mistake, fixed now.

    Spiny Norman in reply to myiq2xu. | August 18, 2013 at 11:37 pm

    Criminals being sent to prison “breaks up families”, so should fathers (and mothers) with children not be incarcerated?

    Why do you want to send my daddy to jail?

Merced Sun-Star:

UC Merced professor highlights racial profiling

In a book due out next year, a UC Merced professor says a lack of judicial discretion leads to a disproportionate number of deportations to Latin America and the Caribbean.

Tanya Golash-Boza, a sociology professor, said 98 percent of all deportees are sent to those two regions.

People from Latin America and the Caribbean make up about 60 percent of non-U.S. citizens living in the United States.

“When you have a combination of a law that sounds unfair to a lot of people, combined with a law that is primarily enforced on black and Latino men,” Golash-Boza said, “I think a lot people say, ‘That’s not really fair.’ ”

She interviewed more than 150 people deported to Jamaica, the Dominican Republic, Brazil and Guatemala. Many were brought to the United States as children and lived here for decades.


Racial profiling plays a part in the disproportionate number of deportations of people of black or Latin descent, Golash-Boza said. She pointed to New York’s policy of “stop and frisk” as an example.

Go read the rest of it. Then mourn for the futures of UCM graduates.

Candidates need to tackle this issue head-on. The basic concept is that they are here illegally and are being deported. Murderers, theives, rapists, dads who don’t pay child support, and drug addicts are sentenced to prison every day, resulting in the breakup of families. Are these people as concerned about the families that are disrupted by sending convicted criminals to prison? What about the children who enter therapy as a result of the trauma of losing contact with a parent due to the consequences of that parent’s illegal activity?

Throw it back in their faces.

    TugboatPhil in reply to windbag. | August 18, 2013 at 9:19 pm

    If only we had people willing to do that. For some reason they still belive that if they act nice, somehow the perpetually offended class will leave them alone.

    GrumpyOne in reply to windbag. | August 19, 2013 at 8:26 am

    A little voice inside me cries, “If crossing the border were to be treated as a felony, at least half of the current issue would have been resolved.”

    We are indeed a stupid nation…

    Observer in reply to windbag. | August 19, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    The politician could have explained to the girl that all nations must have laws, or there will be chaos. He could have asked her if she’d ever seen another kid trying to push his way into the front of a line –either in school, or at an amusement park, etc. He could have explained that the kid was breaking the rules, and that his rule-breaking had to be punished because we need rules in order to have fairness and safety and order in society.

    The politician could have explained to the little girl that her father made a choice to break the law (the rules) and push himself ahead in the line of people waiting to get into this country legally, and that was a bad choice and the wrong thing to do, and that her father knew in advance that his bad choice could have consequences that would negatively affect his family — but he did it anyway.

    Put the blame where it belongs — on the lawbreakers.

      This is an excellent answer from Observer to our elected representatives, who are supposed to, you know, represent us, the citizens of America. Observer’s answer should be copied and sent to all congresspersons. With an added comment that we are not stopping the children from staying with their parents. All they have to do is leave with them.

Kat Von Clawswits | August 18, 2013 at 8:35 pm

When the strategy of illegal immigrants is to procreate and produce an “anchor baby” to gain a foothold in the U.S. then politicians should be expecting the question of why parents who committed a crime in entering the U.S. illegally should be deported. My opinion is that the U.S. should do everything in its power to keep the kids with the parents throughout the deportation process.

    That’ll put the fear of God into them: “We will do everything in our power to see to it that you travel with your parent(s) when they are deported. Keeping families intact is paramount. Once you have settle into your parent’s native land, you can decide whether or not they are more important to you than returning to the US.”

If Republicans want to win this issue they need to talk about the effect of immigration on unemployment.

Talking about broken families caused by immigration enforcement is a losing argument for the GOP.

Talk about the broken families caused by unemployment. Talk about the higher cost of social services because American jobs are being taken by immigrants.

Who will be the hardest hit by legalized immigration? Non-public employee unions, blue collar workers, blacks and other American people of color.

Big business and the “1%ers” get cheap labor.

>>”Reed appeared surprised by the question…”

Then he’s a moron. He shouldn’t be in office. Any republican out there today who’s “surprised” by leftist tactics or by the Left — in any way, shape, manner or form or at any time — doesn’t deserve to be in office. What does it take to figure it out?

It’s why I’m no longer a Republican. I couldn’t take the accommodations to stupidity and cluelessness any longer.

Familys don’t need to be “torn apart”. They can go back to their HOMELAND! If they want to leave the “anchor baby” here, it can be adopted out. Or they can take it with them and it can return when it is 18. But no deferral for ILLEGAL parents. They can go to the BACK of the line and wait. You know we DO have an immigration policy. And we admit MORE PEOPLE THAN THE REST OF THE WORLD COMBINED!

So NO AMNESTY! No more dim voters.

boy I would suck at those questions.
my answer: yeah I would deport your daddy. if he loves you he will take you and if he hates you he will leave you. so does your daddy love you or hate you? and why did your daddy purposely put you in this position?

Call me heartless, but the United States did not tell the parents to enter our country illegally and bring the kids. They knew when they were coming that they were breaking our laws. Yet, they came anyway, to feast off the fat of our land while sending every dime back to their countries. We owe them nothing: not citizenship, not discounted education, and certainly not jobs.

So, the best response the morons who are GOP candidates can make is this: your parents knew when they came here that they were coming illegally, didn’t they? Well, then, the fault and the problem is theirs. Go talk to your parents and asked them why they broke American law and made a criminal of you by bringing you along.

    ZurichMike in reply to Juba Doobai!. | August 19, 2013 at 12:30 am

    “We believe in families that follow the law and stay together. So you’ll first have to ask your parents why they made the choice to break the law, and put their family in a difficult position, especially their children born in America. When people are arrested, they are put in jail and can’t be with their families. But in this case, you *can* stay together as a family by returning home with them — your parents are in charge of your decisions until you are old enough, and we can’t have children running around by themselves without their parents. But when you are 18 you can come back on your own.”

    Bruce Hayden in reply to Juba Doobai!. | August 19, 2013 at 1:57 pm

    Be realistic here – the issue isn’t the kids who came here illegally, along with their families – they can be legally deported. Rather, it is the anchor baby issue, where the mother is here illegally, has a kid who is an automatic US citizen, and then an attempt is made to deport other members of the family, and they use family breakup as the argument against deportation.

      Juba Doobai! in reply to Bruce Hayden. | August 19, 2013 at 4:33 pm

      The response is the same: your parents knew they were entering the USA illegally, didn’t they? Well, if they are deported, it is their responsibility to take you with them so that you will not be a ward of the state because they chose to have a baby in a land in which they were lawbreakers.

Why do you want to displace my daddy? Why do you want to kill the dream of legal immigrants?

Don’t you care about the causes which motivated your daddy to leave his home? Don’t you care about the people he left behind who still suffer under oppression and discrimination?

As for Amnesty International…

Animosity International: Staff on strike in Amnesty offices across the globe

They need to get their own house in order first.

DINORightMarie | August 18, 2013 at 9:27 pm

This is SOP!! This is what the left DOES! Plan, strategically plan, a way to Alinsky-ize the Republicans!! Rule 13 – Pick the Target……always, always!!

Why don’t RNC Reince Priebus and his buddies start planning proactive COUNTER-OFFENSIVES that WORK to these puerile, predictable tactics! Lead! Get a clue who your up against and WORK TO DEFEAT THEM!

Then we won’t have those “heartless” Republicans flubbing the answers, a la Todd Akin in Missouri or Richard Mourdock in Indiana, with “anti-woman” rape/abortion comments.

DINORightMarie | August 18, 2013 at 9:32 pm

It’s a trap!

Cliche, but why don’t these Republicans EVER see it coming?!

If the Republican Party had anything resembling cojones nowadays (a little Spanish lingo), they would allow lawmakers to answer this question honestly without fear of being called “racist” by the chairman of the party. In the impossible scenario that I would be a Congressman in a position to answer such a question, the following is what would happen.

In the case that the minor inquirer truly was incapable of understanding the complexity of the question, I would sincerely thank them for their courage. Then, I would say, “Is your [mother or father] here?” Once that person was identified, my conversation with the kid is over. From that point forward, it’s grown-up time. None of that made-for-YouTube Scary Man vs. Trembling Kid nonsense.

I would ask, “What country is [the deportation candidate] from?” (Allow for answer.)

Next question: “Did s/he understand the risks of coming to the United States illegally?” I’d insist on an answer to that question. Then I’d ask, “Do you know the procedure of entering the United States legally?” (Allow for answer.)

Next question: “What would you say to someone from [that foreign country] who went through that entire legal process because they, unlike [your significant other], respected the laws of the United States and didn’t want to risk that they could be deported after putting down roots here?” Again, I would insist on an answer to that question, because people who did things the right way are entitled to it. The range of answers to that question puts the onus on the parent, who either will make an excuse about the complexity and expense of following American immigration laws, or just out-and-out admit that they didn’t and/or don’t care about breaking the law. I’d allow them to answer the question, but whatever the answer to that question is, it’s not good enough.

I would wrap up by targeting the heart-tugging device of a minor child asking that immigration law be bent for the purpose of “family unity.” Question: “If keeping the family together is the most important thing to you and [significant other] is deported, why wouldn’t you want to just take your child[ren] and go with [sig other] back to [his/her foreign country]?” At this point, they have to state what their preference is: “Family unity,” or life in the United States as a divided family. If they say they would like to live in the United States as a family, my final remark would be that if that was what they wanted, they should have done what legal immigrants did: Obey the law. Children of legal immigrants, I would conclude, don’t have to ask me this kind of question.

Then I would thank the parent, and move on to the next question.

    punditius in reply to L.N. Smithee. | August 18, 2013 at 11:03 pm

    I logged in just to tell you that your post is brilliant.

    ZurichMike in reply to L.N. Smithee. | August 19, 2013 at 12:41 am

    FABULOUS response — putting the onus on the law-breaking parent, where it belongs. With your permission, I will be copying that response for future reference and use — I am sure the “What’s the correct response?” will be coming up again more frequently in the future. Brilliant! Thanks for posting.

The fact that so many Repubs have been blindsided by this, and the fact that there aren’t already talking points for the representatives designed to frame the argument (like the one mentioned above about how amnesty will affect employment), speaks volumes about where the national Repub leadership is on this. They basically have just thrown any Repubs not on board with “comprehensive immigration” to the wolves.

I’m also concerned about the number – or lack thereof – of conservatives attending these town halls. Here in Alabama, conservatives are in a comfy spot. But what about more closely contested states? Does anyone have a feel for what the conservative turnout/mood is like at these townhalls?

    Chem_Geek in reply to gwest. | August 19, 2013 at 3:44 pm

    “They basically have just thrown any Repubs not on board with “comprehensive immigration” to the wolves.”

    That is because the Republican “leadership” is aligned with the 1%er Managerial CEO class, which wants endless cheap labor AND minimal transportation costs. (Not like building a factory in China where you have to ship your product across an ocean to get to market AND they steal your plans & process out fron underneath you…)

The ACLU is also in the news. Apparently, their corporate managers, as the managers at Amnesty International, is also opposed to redistributive change.

ACLU embroiled in contract dispute with its own unionized employees

Progressive corruption is the inevitable outcome when reason, and reasonable, are replaced with emotional appeals and other coercive tactics.

I’ve always found it interesting that even the “dreamers” who are well into their 20s have never made any attempt to get themselves legalized. From what I’ve read, there are advocacy groups that could help and the immigration judges are fairly lenient. Like everything else though, it seems they’re waiting to have it handed to them. Even worse, they demand it. That kind of effrontery doesn’t sit well with me.

Things are bad enough already, especially for citizens looking for work. Any “immigration reform” will make things exponentially worse for US.

[…] HE’S BREAKING THE LAW: Townhall Tactic 2013: Why do you want to deport my daddy? It’s always some kind of child abuse and emotional bullying with these […]

My response, were I candidate: “So this is what the Democrats are reduced to? Exploiting children for a soundbite? How pathetic. Next question.”

This concern for preventing broken Mexican families just doesn’t jibe with the left’s determination to produce broken American families, particularly in the black community. Fatherless children seems to be the goal, whether through unconditional and extensive support for unmarried mothers or via the consequences of easy divorce that remove fathers from the home and their children’s lives.

The left doesn’t believe in intact traditional families at all, so I kinda suspect, just a wittle bitty bit, that their newfound obsession with keeping illegal alien families intact via amnesty might be a tissue of lies wrapped around a nasty little surprise for America. Now what on earth could their true purpose be? As Agatha Christie’s Hercule Poirot often said, “It gives one furiously to think!”

BannedbytheGuardian | August 18, 2013 at 10:57 pm

Amnesty International is for political amnesty eg wellfounded fear of persecution by government on returning to homeland. It is left to each nation to accept / refuse applications.

To accept an application is to acknowledge the problem in the home country & that you do. Not approve.

A method in dealing with these questions is to ask which particular nation the parents are from & answer thus. Congress people should know the particulars of the most common countries they will be faced with. Study up .

Amnesty International appears on TV shows etc but has not a single power.

BannedbytheGuardian | August 18, 2013 at 11:03 pm

The underlying problem is that America accepts being born there is enough for citizenship. Other nations require a proven bond other than birth .

Parents student or visitor visas or working visas are not enough. Or worse – no visa .

I don’t understand the problem, can’t the kid go with them? There’s no law against a US citizen residing in a country other than the US.

We had a girl about 18-years old that came to a meeting we had in Rep John Carter’s office in TX who was also crying because she was so worried that her parents might be deported. Evidently, this is going on nationwide.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | August 18, 2013 at 11:56 pm

I think part of the point of this post that few are commenting on is that the Republican town halls are being overridden by astroturfed Democrat front groups using kids as props with the intention of catching an incumbent Republican on tape saying something in a gotcha moment to a an emotional or crying kid that can then be used in next year’s campaigns.

The people showing up at the townhalls are only tangentially interested in immigration reform. It’s about the next election.

This is how Democrats win.

Henry Hawkins | August 19, 2013 at 12:04 am

If I were a Republican I’d cave in the face of this sort of schmaltz, which is what the GOP does and will do. Gosh, somebody might get offended.

And talk about overkill. The GOP was signaling a cave without the kids being used.

A GOP strategy session involves prioritizing lists of what they’ll cave on and in what order they’ll do it. They make the French look tough and have stolen from them the sobriquet ‘cheese eating surrender monkeys’.

FINE, have it your way, Stink Progress.

I officially am switching my position: Deport them all. Including the children.

You know what I’d like? Speaking English. It’s the puzzle piece that’s missing. This country is a polyglot of cultures and languages. Nothing wrong with that.

My parents were immigrants. My mom was young enough that she just entered second grade. My dad, however, was 13. And, this country provided free night schools. Path to citizenship.

“Townhalls.” An interesting carry over from days of yore. But it’s been turned into a dog and pony show.

For starters you can be absolutely sure ANYTHING a candidate (from either party) says has been scripted in advance. (And, probably focus group tested.) And, if you look “behind” the candidate you’ll see people tasked with dressing the candidate. Applying orange make up. And, basically, designing the candidate to “look” more appealing.

Personally, I’d respect the candidate more if he hired Tuffy the clown. And, said “say what you want. It’s a free country.”

Everyone knows once elected he’ll be bought. DC is all about buying and selling … And, it has nothing to do with these “shows.” Zero. Zilch.

Is anybody in this country actually going to fall for it? Americans are notoriously nomadic. Seriously, coming from Ukraine (anywhere in Europe would do) and was taken aback just by how easily Americans pick up their families and move. From one town to another, from one state to another. New job? — Move! Divorce? — Move! So these girls will relocate to Mexico with their parents and learn Spanish.

Based on this logic, Are we to now let all criminals out of prison who have children?
This country can not be held together if we are not a nation of laws that are enforced.

1) when you are in these situations, you deport the entire illegal alien family, even the anchor babies. the children need their parents.

2) Jus Soli is obsolete. Plyler v. Doe is making illegal immigration worse. And some GOP lawmakers still think it’s a good idea to introduce a guest worker program for low skilled workers?

I do believe in family unity. if the illegal alien parent (who committed a heinous crime like murder) is deported, and he has an anchor baby son who is let’s say 12, the child has the option to stay in the U.S. with his tio or tia or move with his dad.

for migrant workers, esp. filipinos in the middle east and asia, “family separation” is a part of the equation. It’s tough, but they have accepted it to survive.

hong kong recently handed a ruling that disallows maids (aka low skilled guest workers) from permanent residency

OTOH, in the USA, the illegals are getting a pathway to citizenship.

Why do you want to deport my Daddy?

A: We have laws in our country. Sadly, people with children sometimes break those laws. We have to enforce out laws, even against people with children. If we don’t, the laws quickly won’t mean anything. I think you would agree a system where people can choose which laws they agree with and which they don’t is a system that will very fast lead to bad outcomes.

Next question.

General P. Malaise | August 19, 2013 at 6:01 am

deport them all.

In Bush 43 first term many were leaving the US since they were having trouble getting drivers licences.

now they are flooding back due to this amnesty program that they expect to become law.

the republicans should answer these questions saying they support the same rules to immigration that Mexico does.

    “the republicans should answer these questions saying they support the same rules to immigration that Mexico does.”

    Furrein law! Furrein law! We can’t have any furriner law apply to ‘Murica! /mocking-hypocrisy

[…] to Legal Insurrection this looks like it is part of a larger strategy of using emotional appeals about the children of […]

The libertarian position would seemingly be open borders consistent with an orderly and secure process.

the libertarian position should be

1)to first overturn plyler v doe AND plug the anchor baby loophole,

2) THEN have a guest worker program for specific lines of work (like agriculture sector, or work as maids/nannies)

this is patterned after singapore and hong kong guest worker prg.

johnmarzan: the libertarian position should be

Not sure why you would think national borders should be so important to libertarians, other than for basic security. Why should the government regulate the flow of workers? Shouldn’t they move to where there is demand?

I have read a book, written by the former wife of Colorado governor John Hickenlooper, entitled ‘Just Like Us’, a book about four Hispanic high schoolers, two legal, two not. I was amazed when one of the illegal families actually did move back to Mexico (because they decided they just didn’t like living in the U.S. anymore, too difficult to make it) and they left their children behind. Isn’t that borderline abandonment?

I was surprised to learn yesterday at church (Anglican Evangelical) that tomorrow night the Illinois Voices of Immigration Reform: A Call to Action will be giving a presentation in our church.

This event is sponsored by Bibles, Badges and Business (BBB) network – a front for progressives like George Soros and Jim Wallis of Sojurnors

The speakers will include Noel Castellanos of Christian Community Development Assoc., Mark Harris Illinois Science and Tech. Coalition, a Kane County Sheriff, Matthew Soerens of World Relief, Ben Taylor director of the Great lakes region U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Joel Vargas, J.D. of InterportPolice

“But the facts point towards a concerted public relations campaign on the part of the progressive religious left funded heavily by one individual who is himself a leftist and an atheist…What are Soros, the open borders lobby, and the progressive left really trying to accomplish? The Left sees a prime opportunity to exploit Evangelical leaders (World Relief, NAE) by crafting a media campaign designed to convince the GOP leadership that one of their main constituencies, Bible Belt Christians, favors comprehensive reform.” Marjorie Jeffrey from her post:

This is what happens when the 14th Amendment is interpreted in such a way as to grant citizenship to the children of those here illegally or on temporary sojourn.

While those born here have presumptive citizenship, the fact that the parents are not green card holders or are here illegally should result in the child not being a U.S. Citizen.

When we make the children of those here illegally ‘citizens’, we end up with a problem of deporting the U.S. Citizen children. While we can still deport the parents, we cannot deport the child.

The answer is to stop recognizing these children to be U.S. Citizens.

[…] Insurrection’s post about kids of illegal parents asking Republicans at town-hall meetings why they want to deport their daddy — but it’s tougher for Democrats to demagogue a bill with a citizenship path in it than […]

How convenient the moms and dads (and their apologists) deflect the questions of their criminal trespass upon OUR public servants. I’d of told the kid “you’re welcome to back back with your dad”.

1. Yes, I would be happy to adopt one of the kids. (NOTE: I live in Israel.)

2. The kids belong with the families. The kid should be given a sort of locket with lots of ID that he can use when 18 to re-enter the US, then deported with his parents. We should not break up families.

Excellent job of connecting the dots, Professor.

[…] can read the full article here. It’s an eye-opener, and it should be a call to action for conservatives. Emphasize the rule […]

[…] Insurrection posted a blog entry on Sunday documenting multiple instances in the past few weeks where similar questions have been […]

Henry Hawkins | August 19, 2013 at 1:32 pm

If American-born children of Mexican illegals try to return home with illegal parent(s), will the Mexican government, which actually enforces their immigration laws, refuse entry to the ‘American’ kids?

    Observer in reply to Henry Hawkins. | August 19, 2013 at 2:14 pm

    No, and here’s why: the Mexican constitution provides that any child born abroad to Mexican-born parents has the right to Mexican citizenship. That means that babies born in the U.S. to Mexican parents can return to Mexico and claim full rights of Mexican citizenship there.

    This is a little detail that is often omitted when leftists’ laments about how these kids have no home other than the U.S.

      Henry Hawkins in reply to Observer. | August 19, 2013 at 8:57 pm

      Thanks. Saved me serious search engine time.

      rodaka in reply to Observer. | August 19, 2013 at 10:49 pm

      Most countries acknowledge a foreign born child’s right to citizenship. It doesn’t usually come automatically at birth, you just have to file some papers upon returning home.

These comments are great. Please call your senator or representatives’ offices and refer them to this page for direct and useful answers to ‘it’s for the children’ questions.

I think the answer is to tell them that they are free to leave the country with their parents if staying with them is so important. Most likely these kids born here, but with illegal immigrant parents, have dual citizenship, and so could return here legally when they get older.

The fail in this post is unbelievable.

Amnesty fans are able to organize themselves to ask Q’s at townhalls designed to push their agenda. All William Jacobson can do is post about their effort, he can’t come up with an alternative.

For the past several years I’ve been posting Q’s designed to *oppose* amnesty. If there had been a similar effort to ask my Q’s at townhalls, we could have made amnesty fans look very bad and amnesty wouldn’t be in the shape it is.

The problem is that I can’t get any gatekeepers like Jacobson, AllahPundit, NumbersUSA, Kaus, etc. to help out. They discuss how amnesty is rolling right along, but they aren’t willing to work with me to stop it.

See for my plan and dozens of Q’s (the latest set of Q’s are for @Reince).

And, ask Jacobson, AllahPundit, NumbersUSA, Kaus, and other gatekeepers why they won’t help organize an effort to have my Q’s asked.

Dear Tootsie,

Your father is a criminal. Many people have conspired to keep this fact from you and to excuse his behavior but it is the truth. When he chose to engage in illegal activity he subjected you to the risk that he would one day be apprehended and punished along with all of the consequences that such an event would entail. If we were to repeal every law simply because it broke up a family when the offender is caught and punished we would quite literally have no laws at all. It is important that you understand that your father is responsible for your plight and no one else.

You need to sit him down and tell him that hiding behind you is reprehensible and is not going to get him off the hook, and you need to tell him how disappointed you are in him for putting you in this position. You should also let him know in no uncertain terms that you resent being used as a pawn.

Also, I would council you not to be so racist and xenophobic as to think you can’t make a good life for yourself in Mexico. I wish you well and hope that someday your father will see fit to apply for citizenship and wait his turn like the fathers of other little girls who have been waiting patiently, and under some hardship, for their chance to be US citizens. You don’t get to jump to the front of the line just because your father is of lesser character than those men.

All of these are hard truths that should have been broken to you more gently in a less public setting, but amongst your father’s other crimes he also stole that opportunity from you in the hopes of gaining something for himself to which he is not entitled.

I don’t expect you to understand all of this now. Responsible adults should have been at work explaining all of this to you over time. But one day you will look back and understand just what these people have done to you and used you for. I only hope you can forgive them when the time comes for they know not what they do.

Anyone with a lick of sense

[…] a Democrat to do? Campaign for veep. It Hillary is the best they have, what does that say? Townhall Tactic 2013: Why do you want to deport my daddy? Uh… because he BROKE THE LAW…! Obama hits the road Thursday to talk college […]

The easiest answer to such a stupid question is: “If a parent is willing to abandon a child instead of taking the child with them, back to the parent’s country, that person is unfit to be a parent in the first place”. Remember orphanages?

zachriel: “Not sure why you would think national borders should be so important to libertarians, other than for basic security. Why should the government regulate the flow of workers? Shouldn’t they move to where there is demand?”

there is no need for foreign construction workers when you have 7.5 or higher unemployment among US minorities and poor working americans– unless you want to hire cheap labor and not pay obamacare tax. your proposal can only work if you abolish the minimum wage, which will never happen.

and that is why i have limited the guest worker prg to foreign fruit pickers and maids/nannies (so called jobs americans dont want to do anymore), BUT only after changing the citizenship law to jus sanguinis and making free k-12 education inaccessible to the illegal hordes pouring in from mexico.

johnmarzan: there is no need for foreign construction workers when you have 7.5 or higher unemployment among US minorities and poor working americans

Perhaps, but for a libertarian, that’s something for the markets to work out.

Zachriel, as a libertarian, would you be okay with ending free k-12 public education to children brought in illegally and plugging the anchor baby loophole in exchange for a more open border?

johnmarzan: Zachriel, as a libertarian, would you be okay with ending free k-12 public education to children brought in illegally and plugging the anchor baby loophole in exchange for a more open border?

We’re not a libertarian, but libertarians would presumably argue that education should be left to the private sphere. Anchor babies are immaterial if you aren’t restricting immigration.

The point is that by reading this thread, there are very few libertarians. Most of the commenters seem resentful of, not open to, immigration, especially unskilled workers.

My solution to immigration reform is straight forward and simple: all of the people who want to open the floodgates of immigration into the US should, instead, turn around and go to the countries where these people are coming from. They should seek to help these people to reform their own countries ~ like good “neighbors.” Now, if you are a lefty, I don’t think Noam Chomsky will think this is American Imperialism but who knows and who cares.

George Soros, Jim Wallis and his Sojourners can become “missionary-like” emissaries of “good” and not involve a dime of U.S. Tax-payer money. They can take their Bibles, Badges and Business to the countries where people are exiting.

One Warning: We do not want narco-terrorists and their users/suppliers coming across the border. We do not want more people coming into the US when we as a nation cannot control drug trafficking. When I go to juvenile court I see dozens of Hispanic kids facing serious charges.

[…] Townhall Tactic 2013: Why do you want to deport my daddy? Exploiting children to achieve full amnesty — Actual question asked of Rep. Tom Reed: “Would you consider adopting one of those kids?” […]