Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As a registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:30 am Post subject: California is closer to ending illegal "Anchor Baby&quo
California is closer to ending illegal "Anchor Baby" birthsPosted by kimberlydvorak on July 1, 2009 at 10:14am
Add as Friend View kimberlydvorak's blog
San Diego – Californians are one step closer to ending the “Anchor Baby” births by illegals throughout the state. In an effort to close ever-expanding social service programs the California Taxpayer Protection Act of 2010, Initiative 09-0010 has begun the signature process.
The Attorney General of California released the last bit of paperwork required to get the “birth tourism” legislation moving forward. Petitioners must now collect approximately 450,000 California registered voter signatures.
At a press conference in front of the City Hall Administration building, Ted Hilton- author of the bill, Bill Morrow-retired California State Senator, Peter Nunez-former United States Attorney and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement joined together to inform the residents of California to take the immigration issue into their own hands.
This bill is for “real world citizens,” Morrow said. “The people of California have an opportunity to curb the illegal immigration. Many in California may not have seen the grass lately, but we’ve been seeding our roots.”
According to the Attorney General for the state of California, who prepares the title and summary, the state would deny birth certificates to children born to undocumented parents unless the mother provides a fingerprint and other information to be given to the federal authorities.
Finally, the initiative eliminates benefits for children in child-only CalWORKS cases which are not mandated by federal law.
For those who want reassurance, the public benefit restrictions in this initiative have already passed and are on the books in five states, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Oklahoma and Arizona.
The California ballot initiative is closely worded to the law on the books in Oklahoma, says Hilton.
Many in California believe the federal government has dropped the immigration ball over the last 40 years. “In Washington D.C. they have a few nicknames; reform is code word for amnesty,” Nunez explained.
He goes on to say that if Americans allow another amnesty wave to come ashore a new wave of immigrants will head to America – this time the number could be 40 million.
Again Nunez says, “It’s time for the states residents to take care of the illegal immigration problem, the federal, state and local governments have failed.”
As far as immigration containment issues there are three areas that need to be addressed; Border security, workforce enforcement and doling out of public benefits. This ballot initiative addresses the latter, benefits.
The crux of this issue is the “birth tourism.” The state currently pays $400 million per year in ‘normal childbirth,’ according to the state of California Department Health’s latest records. “This doesn’t include the cost of premature births which the Center for Disease Control estimates as 12 percent of all births. The costs to taxpayers for these births and those born with disabilities are over $1 billion more annually,” Hilton said.
According to California State Attorney General office, the initiative would save the taxpayers around $1 billion annually from eliminating the child-only CalWORKS program. Morrow believes the number is much higher. “If you add the costs for ending public benefits, the state will save much more than $1 billion per year.”
Another concerned group that has come out and supports the 2010 ballot initiative are African-Americans.
Ted Hayes who recently ran for congress against Maxine Waters in Los Angeles said, “American black men will stop the birth tourism problem connected to the 14th Amendment.”
“That law was meant for West African slaves, not Latinos crossing the border illegally,” Hayes firmly stated. “The Latinos are taking money from the sweat from our backs; we intend to take it back.”
Nunez concurs, “The 14th Amendment was a way for this country to overcome slavery. Our current national policy doesn’t even allow diplomats in this country to gain citizenship through birth.”
Hayes admits it’s time African-Americans to start fighting for their state and country. “The Latinos want to make this about race. I’ll make this about race. The sponsors of this bill are not racists, they’re Americans and we stand with them.”
***
Backed up by fact, Hilton notes in 1987 California’s teenage birth rate was below the national average. One short year later, pre-natal care commenced for illegal aliens. “Four years later that caused the state’s teenage birth rate to grow to twice the national average and the highest of any state,” says Hilton.
According to the State of California, Department of Public Health’s latest birth records show there were 562,157 live births. A staggering 293,276 were born to a mother of Hispanic background.
“The state estimates between 20-25 percent of all births each year are to those here illegally. It is becoming very evident that the parents lack of ability to pay for these births and immediately require public services to care for these children,” Hilton said.
“Our citizen movement will launch a state and national debate to bring an end to “birth tourism” and automatic citizenship in the United States,” Hilton continues.
“The goal to stop automatic citizenship is critical toward reducing crime. A major reason deported criminal illegal aliens return immediately to the country after deportation is because they have left behind children who were born in the U.S.”
Before leaving office former Homeland Security Director, Michael Chertoff reported there were more than two million criminal illegal aliens in the United States.
Other items included in the initiative:
*Requires illegal mother to provide identification with a photograph, fingerprints and fees in person
*Ends all illegal public funded benefits
*Ends prenatal care for illegal aliens
*Terminates all child welfare checks to illegal aliens (some of which are sent out of the country)
For more information on this initiative and other California reform groups see the links located on the side of this story. For further information regarding the California Taxpayer Protection Act and the actual ballot initiative visit taxpayerrevolution.org.
Sad for the innocent children but these people are using them to get some kind of living expenses and other benefits from the country. It is a shame that babies are being used this way … this only shows the kind of criminals that we are dealing with in this country. They come to have children here by the dozens thinking about themselves NOT about the children that they are bringing to this world.
Joined: Mar 19, 2006 Posts: 5779 Location: Mexifornia
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 11:49 am Post subject:
Xochi wrote:
Sad for the innocent children but these people are using them to get some kind of living expenses and other benefits from the country. It is a shame that babies are being used this way … this only shows the kind of criminals that we are dealing with in this country. They come to have children here by the dozens thinking about themselves NOT about the children that they are bringing to this world.
SAD.
If this passes most of the those children will no longer be born. It will end the current invader practice of having children just to get more money.
Joined: Jan 02, 2008 Posts: 5866 Location: Mexifornia
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:17 pm Post subject:
This is great news and I will do everything to support it. This measure will substantially reduce anchor babies and those who abuse and exploit this state. Despite not being able to get a birth certificate or benefits, will those anchor babies born in CA still be conveyed US citizenship? In other words, are they still considered US citizens even if they cannot get a birth certificate issued to them? I would have to believe they still would be.
Therefore, the problem still remains the interpretation of the 14th Amendment and it's erroneous conveyance of citizenship to the spawn of those who entered this country in violation of immigration law- an interpretation which was never intended!
That's the real crux of the matter! If enough states can pass such legislation, it might force the US Supreme court to finally decide this issue once and for all.
Last edited by NoBueno on Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Nov 01, 2007 Posts: 3652 Location: New Alien City-(formerly New York City)
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:22 pm Post subject:
I wonder if it will be challenged all the way to the SC. We definitely need a National ruling. _________________ If a man sneaks into your home he is a burglar, not an undocumented tenant you must provide for!
Joined: Mar 19, 2006 Posts: 5779 Location: Mexifornia
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:27 pm Post subject:
NoBueno wrote:
Even though they cannot get a birth certificate or benefits, are those anchor babies born in CA still US citizens? The answer is yes, because the 14th Amendment an its erroneous interpretation still conveys citizenship to them.
Not exactly, the 14th Amendment does not allow states to decide who is a citizen and who is not, so this initiative after passage will be headed to the Supreme Court, who will have to decide if anchor babies are US citizens or not. We might get lucky and they say no. If they say yes the initiative will be ruled invalid and we start over trying to get a similar measure passed in Congress. A Federal law of this type will stand up in court.
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 12:35 pm Post subject:
Bowman wrote:
NoBueno wrote:
Even though they cannot get a birth certificate or benefits, are those anchor babies born in CA still US citizens? The answer is yes, because the 14th Amendment an its erroneous interpretation still conveys citizenship to them.
Not exactly, the 14th Amendment does not allow states to decide who is a citizen and who is not, so this initiative after passage will be headed to the Supreme Court, who will have to decide if anchor babies are US citizens or not. We might get lucky and they say no. If they say yes the initiative will be ruled invalid and we start over trying to get a similar measure passed in Congress. A Federal law of this type will stand up in court.
reread the proposal, the parents have to give fingerprints to be checked by the feds in order to get a birth cert, they are not being denied one. If SCOTUS should determine that this is discriminatory treatment, they just print everyone, which they may be planning on doing anyway. It is not really new, when my son was born in cali 5 years ago, they printed us both for comparison to make sure that we matched when I took the little guy home. The only difference is now ICE will be getting a copy. _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Joined: Mar 19, 2006 Posts: 5779 Location: Mexifornia
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 1:04 pm Post subject:
cayla99 wrote:
reread the proposal, the parents have to give fingerprints to be checked by the feds in order to get a birth cert, they are not being denied one.
That is true, but it will also say "foreign parents" on the birth certificate, in other words illegal alien babies will get a different birth certificate than everyone else. That is how they will be denied benefits, only those with lawful or US citizen parents and thus having a normal birth certificate will receive the benefits.
But the only way a state can issue "foreign parents" birth certificates is if the children are not US citizens, otherwise it violates the 14th Amendment.
I have said this all along. If illegal aliens are forced to go to the Feds to get a birth certificate, they won't apply for it. For one thing, it's not a state's responsibility to see that these people get birth certificates, anyway. The feds keep saying illegal immigration is the federal government's job, so let them do the job.
It is absolutely imperative to stop illegal aliens from giving birth in this country.
The number one way they are bankrupting the states is through the medical care, birth costs, benefits given after the birth, and subsequent education of their U.S. born children. Stop anchor baby citizenship and a huge burden will be lifted from American taxpayers.
Joined: Jan 02, 2008 Posts: 5866 Location: Mexifornia
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:03 pm Post subject:
Bowman wrote:
NoBueno wrote:
Even though they cannot get a birth certificate or benefits, are those anchor babies born in CA still US citizens? The answer is yes, because the 14th Amendment an its erroneous interpretation still conveys citizenship to them.
Not exactly, the 14th Amendment does not allow states to decide who is a citizen and who is not, so this initiative after passage will be headed to the Supreme Court, who will have to decide if anchor babies are US citizens or not. We might get lucky and they say no. If they say yes the initiative will be ruled invalid and we start over trying to get a similar measure passed in Congress. A Federal law of this type will stand up in court.
Bowman, I do not believe I said, nor implied that the 14th Amendment allows states to decide who is a citizen and who is not. The 14th Amendment conveys US citizenship to those born on US soil. This state initiative cannot supersede that , so the erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendmenst still remains.
As I also stated, if enough states pass such legislation, the Supreme Court might be inclined to hear this issue. However, there are a few stops along the way before it ever reaches the Supreme Court, and even then, the Supreme Court may choose to view this issue narrowly and not even touch the 14th Amendment issue. The Court could simply rule on whether or not states can pass legislation denying birth certificates to those born in this country. It all depends on how the issue is framed and what those challenging this legislation ask the court to review.
Anything could happen along the way. But it's a great first step to hopefully resolving this issue once and for all. I'm just happy that illegal invaders are facing the possibility of being cut off in this state! Anything else that comes of this is simply an added bonus!
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:43 pm Post subject:
NoBueno wrote:
Bowman wrote:
NoBueno wrote:
Even though they cannot get a birth certificate or benefits, are those anchor babies born in CA still US citizens? The answer is yes, because the 14th Amendment an its erroneous interpretation still conveys citizenship to them.
Not exactly, the 14th Amendment does not allow states to decide who is a citizen and who is not, so this initiative after passage will be headed to the Supreme Court, who will have to decide if anchor babies are US citizens or not. We might get lucky and they say no. If they say yes the initiative will be ruled invalid and we start over trying to get a similar measure passed in Congress. A Federal law of this type will stand up in court.
Bowman, I do not believe I said, nor implied that the 14th Amendment allows states to decide who is a citizen and who is not. The 14th Amendment conveys US citizenship to those born on US soil. This state initiative cannot supersede that , so the erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendmenst still remains.
As I also stated, if enough states pass such legislation, the Supreme Court might be inclined to hear this issue. However, there are a few stops along the way before it ever reaches the Supreme Court, and even then, the Supreme Court may choose to view this issue narrowly and not even touch the 14th Amendment issue. The Court could simply rule on whether or not states can pass legislation denying birth certificates to those born in this country. It all depends on how the issue is framed and what those challenging this legislation ask the court to review.
Anything could happen along the way. But it's a great first step to hopefully resolving this issue once and for all. I'm just happy that illegal invaders are facing the possibility of being cut off in this state! Anything else that comes of this is simply an added bonus!
Actually the 14th amendment states "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." When you read the debates regarding this amendment, all were in agreement that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," meant that they have no other loyalties. _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Joined: Mar 19, 2006 Posts: 5779 Location: Mexifornia
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 2:48 pm Post subject:
NoBueno wrote:
Bowman, I do not believe I said, nor implied that the 14th Amendment allows states to decide who is a citizen and who is not. The 14th Amendment conveys US citizenship to those born on US soil. This state initiative cannot supersede that , so the erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendmenst still remains.
How do you know the current misuse of the 14th Amendment will continue, since the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue. Their only ruling was in 1898 which gave birthright citizenship to the children of legal Asian immigrants.
Also, did you know that "Indians not taxed" did not receive birthright citizenship until 1924, and that resulted from an act of Congress, not a Supreme Court decision. The notion that the 14th Amendment gives US citizenship to everyone born on US soil is patently false, but it has been propagandized that way by the globalist media. As Ted Hayes said, the 14th Amendment was for freed African slaves, not illegal alien babies.
Joined: Jan 02, 2008 Posts: 5866 Location: Mexifornia
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 3:09 pm Post subject:
Bowman wrote:
NoBueno wrote:
Bowman, I do not believe I said, nor implied that the 14th Amendment allows states to decide who is a citizen and who is not. The 14th Amendment conveys US citizenship to those born on US soil. This state initiative cannot supersede that , so the erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendmenst still remains.
How do you know the current misuse of the 14th Amendment will continue, since the Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue. Their only ruling was in 1898 which gave birthright citizenship to the children of legal Asian immigrants.
Also, did you know that "Indians not taxed" did not receive birthright citizenship until 1924, and that resulted from an act of Congress, not a Supreme Court decision. The notion that the 14th Amendment gives US citizenship to everyone born on US soil is patently false, but it has been propagandized that way by the globalist media. As Ted Hayes said, the 14th Amendment was for freed African slaves, not illegal alien babies.
Bowman, I do not know that the current erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment will continue, as your correct, the Supreme Court has not considered this issue. Please try to understand what i'm saying. Even if this legislation passes, and without an act of Congress and without Supreme Court intervention, the erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment will continue. Do you understand?
I'm well aware of the 14th Amendment and it's original intent. Conveying citizenship to the spawn of those who entered this country in violation of our immigration laws was not that intent! Please understand, that I understand that to be the case. We are running in circles here!
An act of Congress would be fantastic. But I will not hold my breath on that one. So what we are left with are individual states who have decided to deal with this issue as they see fit.
Eventually, the Supreme Court may get involved. Until such time, we are where we are.
Joined: Mar 19, 2006 Posts: 5779 Location: Mexifornia
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 4:37 pm Post subject:
NoBueno wrote:
Please try to understand what i'm saying. Even if this legislation passes, and without an act of Congress and without Supreme Court intervention, the erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment will continue. Do you understand?
<snip>
Eventually, the Supreme Court may get involved. Until such time, we are where we are.
It won't be eventually, the opposition (MALDEF, ACLU, etc.) has said they will sue to stop implementation of this initiative the day after is passes. The initiative backers then will take it all the way to the Supreme Court, so we will get a ruling one way or the other. If the Supremes rule against us, the backers hope the publicity will get enough public support to force Congress to pass a law ending the practice.
So while the initiative will not directly end misuse of the 14th Amendment, it has a good chance of indirectly ending it.
Joined: Oct 22, 2007 Posts: 406 Location: Phoenix, AZ (aka Center of Hell)
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:12 pm Post subject:
I swear, I love this country. I've said a hundred times I would have been shot in another country for flapping my jaws AND being female in most every country on the planet.
Where else can people keep standing up for what is right? And, they eventually listen if you have fairness and the truth on your side. We have to work on all the idiots in Washington. I think they are scared myself. They have been thrown into a tizzy over how the internet has moved their actions through every home in America in about 15 seconds. They don't have a clue how to deal with it. This current administration and their activities, as far as I'm concerned, is just an indication that Washington is trying to catch up. They are not doing a very good job. And us telling them just makes them keep dancing. Just the fact that we get copies of their new bills to read almost as fast as they do. AND we read them and they don't makes them look like boobs.
LET'S VOTE THE DOPES OUT.
I'm trying to get back to California, this is such great news for me.
Joined: Jan 02, 2008 Posts: 5866 Location: Mexifornia
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 5:37 pm Post subject:
Bowman wrote:
NoBueno wrote:
Please try to understand what i'm saying. Even if this legislation passes, and without an act of Congress and without Supreme Court intervention, the erroneous interpretation of the 14th Amendment will continue. Do you understand?
<snip>
Eventually, the Supreme Court may get involved. Until such time, we are where we are.
It won't be eventually, the opposition (MALDEF, ACLU, etc.) has said they will sue to stop implementation of this initiative the day after is passes. The initiative backers then will take it all the way to the Supreme Court, so we will get a ruling one way or the other. If the Supremes rule against us, the backers hope the publicity will get enough public support to force Congress to pass a law ending the practice.
So while the initiative will not directly end misuse of the 14th Amendment, it has a good chance of indirectly ending it.
I certainly hope it progresses as you have predicted Bowman. I have a few questions though. What's the 9th Circuit going to do and will that have any affect on how the case progresses? What about the U.S. Court of Appeals? And what affect will that have on Petition for Writ of Certiorari? In your opinion, does it matter who actually Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in so far as how this issue will be presented to the Supreme Court? Are you certain the Supreme Court will grant the Writ of Certiorari?
The tricky thing I see is the word jurisdiction, which implies: dominion, control, influence; district, range, reach according to my dictionary. An anchor baby is under the dominion, control, influence, district, range and reach of his/her illegal parents, who are not necessarily under the dominion, control, influence, district, range and reach of the United States.
If I am in Albania, I am subject to their jurisdiction temporarily but I am under the permanent jurisdiction of the US. That is why I would have a US passport to reinforce that point.
Joined: Mar 19, 2006 Posts: 5779 Location: Mexifornia
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:17 pm Post subject:
NoBueno wrote:
I certainly hope it progresses as you have predicted Bowman. I have a few questions though. What's the 9th Circuit going to do and will that have any affect on how the case progresses?
HA! Of course the 9th Circus court will rule against the measure.
Quote:
What about the U.S. Court of Appeals?
I don't know which way they would rule.
Quote:
And what affect will that have on Petition for Writ of Certiorari? In your opinion, does it matter who actually Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in so far as how this issue will be presented to the Supreme Court? Are you certain the Supreme Court will grant the Writ of Certiorari?
You need to ask Attorney at law. I have no idea if they will grant the Writ, but I think chances are good they will.
Joined: Aug 17, 2007 Posts: 4443 Location: Indiana, formerly of Northern Cal
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:22 pm Post subject:
Bowman wrote:
NoBueno wrote:
I certainly hope it progresses as you have predicted Bowman. I have a few questions though. What's the 9th Circuit going to do and will that have any affect on how the case progresses?
HA! Of course the 9th Circus court will rule against the measure.
Quote:
What about the U.S. Court of Appeals?
I don't know which way they would rule.
Quote:
And what affect will that have on Petition for Writ of Certiorari? In your opinion, does it matter who actually Petitions for Writ of Certiorari in so far as how this issue will be presented to the Supreme Court? Are you certain the Supreme Court will grant the Writ of Certiorari?
You need to ask Attorney at law. I have no idea if they will grant the Writ, but I think chances are good they will.
I think whether or not they grant the writ depends on whether or not they like what the 9th circus has to say on the subject _________________ Proud American and wife of a wonderful <strong>LEGAL</strong> immigrant from Ireland.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing." -Edmund Burke (1729-1797)
Joined: Mar 19, 2006 Posts: 5779 Location: Mexifornia
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:24 pm Post subject:
vortex wrote:
The tricky thing I see is the word jurisdiction, which implies: dominion, control, influence; district, range, reach according to my dictionary. An anchor baby is under the dominion, control, influence, district, range and reach of his/her illegal parents, who are not necessarily under the dominion, control, influence, district, range and reach of the United States.
If I am in Albania, I am subject to their jurisdiction temporarily but I am under the permanent jurisdiction of the US. That is why I would have a US passport to reinforce that point.
Yes, you have a US passport and demand to see the US consolute if detained. Just like illegal aliens many times demand their government representation during trials. Also the majority of anchor babies obtain birth certifications and passports from their parents country, thus they along with their parents are under the jurisdiction of a foreign country.
If Mexico or any foreign country opposes this initiative in any way, it seems that would greatly help our case.
Joined: Mar 19, 2006 Posts: 5779 Location: Mexifornia
Posted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:28 pm Post subject:
cayla99 wrote:
I think whether or not they grant the writ depends on whether or not they like what the 9th circus has to say on the subject
In that case they will probably grant the Writ since the 9th Circus comes up with off the wall rulings that are more often than not overturned by the Supreme Court.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Contribute/Join
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Sad for the innocent children but these people are using them to get some kind of living expenses and other benefits from the country. It is a shame that babies are being used this way … this only shows the kind of criminals that we are dealing with in this country. They come to have children here by the dozens thinking about themselves NOT about the children that they are bringing to this world.
