Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (16923)	6/16/2001 1:32:26 AM
From: gao seng	Respond to of 82486

Guess they wouldn't have sent Elian back, then.

To: TimF who wrote (16923)	6/16/2001 5:18:06 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

In a remarkable 5 to 4 decision issued on Monday, the court upheld what can only be seen as a blatant form of discrimination against fathers in our immigration law. I saw that. I was surprised that the decision was so close. We know who the mother is. That's pretty obvious. Traditionally, the official father is the man to whom the woman is married whether or not he's the biological father. If the woman isn't married, then what. Who is the father? The Jews have always said you're a Jew if your mother is a Jew. It seems reasonable to me to say you're an American if your mother is an American. If your father is an American but not married to your mother, then he needs to take some affirmative step to declare you his child. I think that the INS rules could be more expansive and friendly. If the father raises the child as his, that's affirmative enough for me. But I don't see anything inherently wrong with requiring the father to check off the correct box. Karen