This is an article that came out about a week ago in USAToday (but written by the Associated Press), talking about a child protest against the deportation of their parents due to illegal immigration laws. The children, citizens of the US by birth, argue that if their parents are deported, they will probably also be deported, therefore their constitutional rights are being violated.
I am still doing research on which of their rights is being violated (since even the right to property can be removed with due process of law), but this brings up an important point: if the UNCRC is ratified, we face a serious immigration problem. If the child of an illegal immigrant were to protest his rights as a child under the UNCRC, he would not be able to be returned, since what is in his best interest is staying in the place he has always known (see the post on my blog of a similar instance involving the Goldman family). Since children also have the "right to a mother and father" according to the UNCRC, his/her parents cannot be deported, either. We would have no means of removing them from our country.
My concern stems predominantly from the effect on legal immigration, and how many would seek to cheat the system by having a child in the United States instead of following regular immigration laws/procedures. When you add the concern of a threat to our national security - not being able to deport anyone who has a child in the US - we have a serious problem.
What is our response? We defend children by empowering parents, not by breaking the law. If parents are held responsible as guardians and guides for their children, the decision to legally immigrate would be much more appealing.
Friends, when it all comes down, legitimizing illegal actions is simply wrong, let alone dangerous: we need an amendment which will protect us from such a flagrant violation of national security.
Watching the stars,
"Our council at the Dancing Lawn must be a council of war." -- Glenstorm