Reply With Quote
Do I need to go find those too?
I asked for numbers of illegal immigrants having babies there, you certainly didn't provide that. The reason I pointed it out, however, is that sometimes stuff like that gets lost in translation when you hear the moaning and ing.
Not all non-citizens are illegals. Some of us actually went through a pretty tough process and paid all the frigging fees to do things right, so it's really aggravating when idiots like you puts us in the same bag as those that did not.
I don't really know if the large majority were illegal or not. But if that's the problem, then have ICE sitting in the front door of the hospital (much like they do in domestic airports across the border), and a large part of your problem will go away. You don't need to change the cons ution to do that.
Do I need to go find those too?
To clarify, my point isn't that anchor babies don't exist. But there are ways to minimize them by simply enforcing the law as it's currently written.
Perhaps. The devil's in the details....or enforcement in this case.
As in Chump's position on fining companies that hire illegals....isn't there already legislation on the books that codify this very thing?
But enforcement, well, that's a whole different concept.
Gotcha.
I was really asking anyone in general. The OP said "pick a side es" and I'm still wondering what all of the main arguments for amending the 14th amendment are.
So far we have "there are a lot of anchor babies being born at Parkland hospital."
Yeah, I'm trying to place a dog in this fight, but honestly, I'm just all over the place on this issue.
This is true.
I would suspect at least 75% of that number would be illegal immigrants. Still, it would be nice to have an actual separation.
Why would it be nice to have a separate number? What is the cut off for you that would make this a non-issue?
For those looking for numbers, here ya go.
Link
CNN) -- One of about every 12 babies born in the United States in 2008 was the offspring of unauthorized immigrants, a Pew Hispanic Center study released Wednesday concluded.
According to the study, an estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in this country that year had parents who were in the United States without legal do entation.
The 14th Amendment to the Cons ution stipulates that those children automatically become U.S. citizens, but some members of Congress are pushing to change that provision. That effort -- rooted in the debate over illegal immigration, particularly of people from Mexico -- has created some controversy.
"This has got a lot of attention in the past weeks," said Jeffrey S. Passel, the study's author. "The idea was just to put a number on it."
According to the study, 79 percent of the 5.1 million children of unauthorized immigrants in the United States were born in this country, making them U.S. citizens.
Nearly one of four children born in the United States in 2008 had parents who were immigrants, the Pew study found. Of those, 16 percent of the parents were legal immigrants and 8 percent were in the United States without proper do entation.
Many of those children are Latino, Passel said.
More than three-fourths of all unauthorized immigrants in the United States in March 2009 were Latinos, the researcher said. And nearly one of every four children under age 18 in the nation was a Hispanic.
That trend is likely to continue, the study concludes.
"Overall, Hispanics who live in the U.S. have higher rates of fertility than do whites, blacks or Asians," the report states. "And among Hispanics, the foreign born have higher rates of fertility than the native born."
Immigration reform has become a hot-button issue this political season. Arizona passed a law in April that required all immigrants to carry do entation of legal status and other states are considering similar measure even though major parts of the Arizona law were struck down last month in federal court.
"The country is really emotionally torn over this," U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said recently on CNN.
The government estimates there are more than 11 million illegal immigrants in the United States.
Proponents of stricter immigration enforcement and control point to the large number of Latinos having babies in the United States as reason to change the 14th Amendment. The proponents say these children, which they often call "anchor babies," qualify for welfare and other programs and make it harder to deport their parents
"Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency," says an organization called The American Resistance, which has described itself as "a coalition of immigration crime fighters opposing illegal and undo ented immigration."
Under the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, the child may sponsor other family members for entry into the United States when he or she reaches the age of 21.
The group notes that "the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently freed slaves." The intent of the amendment "was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law at taxpayer expense," The American Resistance says on its website.
Having a child become an automatic U.S. citizen can provide immigrants with another reason to come to this nation illegally, some critics say.
"I think we need to look at that in the future as to whether or not we want to change that because I think it's an incentive to break the law," said Graham, the U.S. senator.
Texas state Rep. Debbie Riddle, a Republican, pointed out another concern on CNN's "AC 360" program Tuesday night. Some pregnant women from other countries are traveling to the United States to give birth and then taking their babies back home to raise them as terrorists that would return to attack America, she said.
Information for that "sinister issue," Riddle said, is coming from from former FBI officials she declined to name.
"This is something that is being talked about by various members of Congress," she said.
State Rep. Rafael Anchia, a Democrat, disputed the claim, calling it "the myth of anchor babies."
"For that to rise to some sort of national security concern is really unsubstantiated," Anchia said. "The 9/11 bombers were all here legally. The Times Square bomber was a naturalized citizen. He was not an anchor baby."
Anchia also disputed the contention that having a baby in the United States hinders the deportation process.
"The law does not bear that out," he said. "Just because you have a child here doesn't mean you can't be deported tomorrow."
Despite all the heat, a majority of Americans seem to oppose changing the 14th Amendment. A nationwide poll conducted in June by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press found that 56 percent of Americans are against changing the citizenship provision while 41 percent favor amending it.
The Pew Hispanic Center is a nonpartisan research organization that does not take positions on policy issues.
"Americans seem to oppose changing the 14th Amendment."
Well, there ya go. There goes your 37 states NOT ratifying amending an amendment, if it ever got out of Congress.
Fourteenthers, and "original" Thirteenthers, etc, etc, ad nauseam are just trivial Repug/fringe machine noise distracting the real American problems, and distracting from the blatant fact that Repugs and accomplices offer no solutions for immigration reform.
Now, can we get back to terrorist fist bumps, and birth certs? Gotta get them s out of the WHITE ing HOUSE.
I would be "for" the fixing of this situation (whether through legislation or amendment) as I have said prior in this thread, and I am sure if you look around the forum, that you will notice that I am neither a neo-con, or Repug, or whatever other juvenile insults you can cut and paste (yes I have already been called a lib and got on their case for that idiocy too).
Is this low-hanging fruit? Yep, but low hanging fruit is easily picked. I do however agree that this isn't the "immigration reform" that everyone has been waiting for, but think that it should be a part of a more comprehensive package. We were talking about it above in the thread and I thought it was a decent compromise. Maybe I was wrong.
So yes, this particular thing, in and of itself, would seem to be a distraction, but as a part of a broader conversation regarding immigration reform, I don't see it as such.
"low-hanging fruit"
37 states ratifying, or even getting it to Congressional vote, is low-hanging fruit?
Well, it could first be done through legislation, the let the courts take up the case. If they rule against it, then que sera sera. It will, obviously, at that point not be low hanging fruit.
"first be done through legislation"
Repugs couldn't get enough Dems to turn off Latino voters by supporting changing the amendment only through Congressional action. ain't gonna happen
Ok, ain't going to happen, I do, however, think that it should happen. I also think that, although it would be a calculated risk, you could probably convince some democrats if there was some kind of seasonal worker visa provision in the bill (expanded work visas as noted above). Additionally, dems like to be seen as tough on Big Business so big penalties for those hiring illegals (especially after the expanded work visa program) could help to offset some of the votes they lose via nixing the anchor baby part of the bill.
The supreme Court interprets the cons ution all the time.
Maybe it's time for a legal challenge to the interpretation of the 14th while Roberts is still Chief Justice.
Do it in Texas and it would have a decent chance of clearing the 5th district.
LOL, this is probably the only thing it says on their job description.
The 14th Amendment does not prevent Congress from conferring citizenship onto American-born children of illegal immigrants. I'm not sure what the basis of a "challenge" would be.
The only way the courts will sniff this is if Congress first restricts birthright citizenship.
I think that the challenge would have to be something like this lawyer guy is challenging the citizenship of this baby.
Or someone, anyway. Maybe if a state refused to issue birth certificates. I'm not saying that would be the best way to approach it but it could be a possibility.
Arizona: "I'm your huckleberry"
How could they do that?
It would probably be more like issuing a different birth certificate. Something like a birth cert with all of the normal info, and "NON-CITIZEN" printed across the top.
I don't know, this is just theoretical.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
