Should "anchor baby" law be changed?

9

9mmsnoopy

New member
It seems that my viewpoints on ILLEGAL immigration have been wrong all along.

An article in sundays Houston Chronicle "Border Baby Boom Strains Texas" goes on to state that an estimated 70-80 percent of the births last year in two of Houstons "charity" hospitals were born to illegals, and how the total cost of healthcare in the Houston hospital district (i.e. the taxpayers) was a whopping $97.3 million. As if thats something we didnt know.

Yet later in the article we get a quote from "undocumented immigrant" Socorro Gonzalez who just gave birth to her FOURTH child on U.S. soil.

Gonzalez states that "I dont see why they should deny a medical service if were here struggling for this country" and that "Because of the help of mexican workers,whether they want us or not,this country is progressing"

Damn, what a fool ive been. All this time i have been thinking they were coming here for their own benefit, to take advantage of the jobs,healthcare,educations, etc... now i see that they are struggling for the country and that everythings getting better. :rolleyes:
 
well, there you go

We should all just shut up on the issue, because they're only here for our good.... :barf: :barf: :barf:

Springmom
 
Here's the logical change: If you are here LEGALLY, then BOTH you and your child can apply for permanent citizenship. Citizenship should not be automatic for the child if the parent is illegal. The "well has been tainted" by the first illegal act, in this case the unlawful entry into the country. All else is also illegal after that. The concept left as vague as "born on U.S. soil" is simply stupid as has been demonstrated by the illegals sneaking in multiple times to give birth. There should be some kind of qualifying(like the parent being here LEGALLY). Whats going on right now is simply out of hand. Its not "rocket science" on any side of the argument.
Josh
 
Stage 2 is correct, it would require a constitutional ammendment.

It would make sense to me to amend it to say something along the lines of any offspring of 1 or more American citizens whether on U.S. soil or not, or any offspring of legal immigrants in the process of obtaining permanent resident and/or citizen status (as opposed to migrant workers) where the birth occurs on U.S. soil.

That would specifically eliminate the "anchor babies" thing and go a long way towards aleviating the illegal immigrant problem -- that along with providing only such indigent medical care in sufficient amounts to allow them to be safely deported, and no more. The "Free Lunch" they are enjoying has got to stop.
 
I've been angry about the anchor baby law from the moment I realized how it worked. That was a couple of decades ago or so.

The problem with it is that it is NOT "in the Constitution", and the wording that IS in the Constitution easily allows States to deny such automatic citizenship.

It's the Liberal "interpretation" of the actual wording that resulted in this onslaught of illegals that American citizens have to pay for over and over and over and over and over.... you get the point.

Maybe, just maybe enough people will come to understand this issue and finally make it an issue that elections will hinge on. Just maybe we can set it right.

Carter
 
I don't know Carter, but it is fairly clear wording to me.

Amendment 14, section 1 clause 1: 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.

All persons... could that mean all? The Courts seem to think so. That's what they have always ruled on. I don't see any exceptions listed there, do you?

I would think that it would take an amendment to the Constitution, to change the interpretation of all to mean certain exceptions...
 
Amendment 14, section 1 clause 1: 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.
Click to expand...

As is so usual, so many people will consider just PART of the Constitution and totally ignore the rest as being insignificant.

Here's the part you ignore: "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

The qualifier is AND, not "or".
Since the illegal alien is not a citizen, they are NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof. In fact, note that when an illegal is picked up, they are supposed to be sent back to their country of origin immediately with no other regard to anything other than that simple Federal mandate (that is not longer enforced).

An illegal alien, BY DEFINITION, is NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof because they are not supposed to be there at all. In Mexico (or wherever), they are subject to the jurisdiction of their country as defined by their citizenship status there.
How can they be subject to "the jurisdiction thereof" when they are not on the tax roles of that jurisdiction, and not listed as a resident of that jurisdiction?

On the other hand, an argument CAN be made for a legal alien with a green card that they ARE subject to the jurisdiction where they are registered, but I'd still like to see the Constitution changed to where children born only to American citizens are given automatic citizenship.

Just curious because I haven't looked into it: What's the stats on how many other countries grant automatic citizenship to children born in those countries to illegal aliens there?
Just wondering...

Carter
 
An illegal alien, BY DEFINITION, is NOT subject to the jurisdiction thereof because they are not supposed to be there at all.
Click to expand...

Uh, no. Anyone within the jurisdiction of the governing authority is, by definition, subject to said authority. In simple terms (and as related to this issue) where you are at governs whether there is jursidiction, not how you got there.

The answer to this is to simply treat the situation of the anchor baby like you would that of any other child of a criminal: separate the two. Child into foster care, mother into prison (or deported). We do it every day of the week across this nation to American citizens, we just don't have the guts to do it to illegals.
 
Antipitas... correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there exceptions for the children of diplomats and also other provisions involving ships in our ports?
 
Of course it should be changed.

Problem is, that requires a constitutional amendment, which requires a supermajority (3/4ths of states' ratification, and 2/3rds of Congress) - not at all an easy thing to do. But I'm all for it. I'll mention that to my congress-critters....
 
The answer to this is to simply treat the situation of the anchor baby like you would that of any other child of a criminal: separate the two. Child into foster care, mother into prison (or deported). We do it every day of the week across this nation to American citizens, we just don't have the guts to do it to illegals.
Click to expand...

The problem with this, of course, is that when we place a child in foster care we are then paying for every single bit of that child's care...food, clothing, medical. If mama keeps her kid, then mama pays for these things. Mama AND baby need to be sent back to mama's home country.

Baby may be an American citizen, but every infant's rights are circumscribed and limited because of their age and because it is the parent who has legal responsibility for the child until their 18th birthday. Despite the technicality of baby being an American citizen, that does not mean that mama should get a free pass to stay, or that baby's existence should bump mama to the front of the immigration line.

Bottom line...baby cannot make the choice to stay in the U.S. or go back to mama's home country, because baby is a minor. Mama must be deported because she's here illegally. Mama must take baby home with her because baby is her responsibility, not the American taxpayers'. When baby becomes an adult, then baby has the right to claim U.S. citizenship. Until then, baby stays with mama, and if mama wants to be here she can go through the immigration process just like my great grandparents had to.

Springmom
 
Bottom line...baby cannot make the choice to stay in the U.S. or go back to mama's home country, because baby is a minor. Mama must be deported because she's here illegally. Mama must take baby home with her because baby is her responsibility, not the American taxpayers'.
Click to expand...

Hold on there.. that's just too darn simple and sensible. (Although it would make ME happy and we wouldn't even have to change the Constitution).

But; simple and sensible for our yahoos in Washington?
Naah. Ain't ever gonna' see daylight in this US government.

Carter
 
springmom, you read my mind. I was thinking that if we treat them just like any other criminal with a child situation, it would go over easier. The preferred situation is to get rid of them both and allow the child to return when they are of legal age . . . but not with the family.
 
Well CDH, I see buzz-knox got to the thread before I could take lunch.

I would hope you see that I ignored nothing, you were just confused over the meaning of that next clause.

The meaning of which, directly answers STAGE 2's question. Ever heard the phrase, "Diplomatic Immunity?" Diplomats are not subject to the Jurisdiction of the U.S. So yes, children born in the U.S. whose parent is a diplomat, does not acquire U.S. citizenship.

As for ships in port, this applies only if the actual birth occurs on the ship. If the mother is transported to a hospital and the birth occurs on U.S. soil (during transport, even), then the child is a U.S. citizen (regardless of any dual-citizenship laws).

Springmom, your idea is elegant in its simplicity.
 
Just interpret 14A the same way they do 2A; that it just means the gov may decide to allow them to be citizens under certain conditions.
 
Every war ever fought in this country was fought over taxes. And, this war is about taxes, too.

Our problem seems to be that illegal aliens are coming into the country, getting the benefit of the U.S. tax system, but not paying any taxes themselves. Would a suitable answer not be for all of the illegal aliens to simply begin paying taxes?

Here's a proposal for an alternative solution: Require the hospitals to work in conjunction with the INS to issue work visas to the illegals when they give birth. Also, require the hospitals to check the parents' citizenship status when they come in, to determine who needs one and who doesn't.

The work visas will keep the parents from being deported, and they will provide tracking numbers for the government to collect taxes to help pay for the free medical care. If the issuance of the visas are mandatory, then the parents will have one of two options: Accept the work visa from the hospital, or get arrested by INS, whose job it will be to issue work visas OVER the parents' objections. Any problems with this?
 
The problem with collecting taxes on the labor of illegal workers is that you'd have to verify the documentation they provided when they were hired. There was a program to do just that. It was killed by the Bush administration, at the request of the US Chamber of Commerce, almost as soon as Bush was sworn in. IIRC, it was the USCOC's #1 regulatory priority in 2001.

The business community will go to great lengths to preserve the supply of poor, desperate, cheap workers who will take any job for any pay, have no rights and protections, and can't vote.

And, FYI, illegal workers do pay taxes, every time they buy something. They just don't pay income taxes. Making them pay income taxes would be great, but doing so would destroy the employer's argument that they shouldn't be required to follow the law, and they'll never go for that... Which means the Republican party will never go for it either. When was the last time the GOP did anything the Chamber of Commerce or Business Roundtable was against?

And no, the Dems don't get a bye here, either. Neither party has any interest in solving the problem. As some AZ Republican Congressman said, "For the Right, it's cheap labor, and for the Left, it's cheap votes." That's a tough combination to fight. Amybe an impossible one, if the last 20 years are any indication.

As to ammending the Constitution, to get rid of the "anchor baby" problem, I don't think that's a good idea. Solve the inflow problem, and give it 2-3 generations. 3rd generation Mexican-Americans don't speak much Spanish... no matter how their grandparents got here. You won't find neighborhoods in New York where everyone speaks Italian anymore. LA will be the same way in 50 years. In other words, it's a short-term problem, and you don't ammend the Constitution to solve short-term problems.

--Shannon
 
My employer can refuse to file a W-2 on my employment regardless of whether I actually have a Social Security number. That's a Business Regulations problem, not an Immigration problem.

I think that issuing every illegal who checks into a hospital an automatic work visa will do alot to help lessen the problem. It won't fix everything, but it's better than putting 30,000 armed troops shoulder-to-shoulder across half the continent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top