Thread: Indiana judge rules in favor of illegal immigrants' kids

Last updated: January 28, 2011 6:48 p.m.
Indiana judge rules in favor of illegal immigrants' kids
CHARLES WILSON | Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana cannot deny paternity documents for children born in the U.S. just because their parents are illegal immigrants and don't have Social Security numbers, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt's ruling came in a lawsuit filed by parents who said a state policy requiring the numbers violates their children's rights under the 14th Amendment, which recognizes the children as U.S. citizens. Pratt issued a preliminary injunction barring the policy, which began last July.

"These newborn children are American citizens, and we have to remember that," Pratt said.

Under the new policy, state health officials require that paternity affidavits filed by unmarried parents contain both parents' Social Security numbers or be sent back to county health offices unrecorded. Without the affidavits, which establish legal paternity, a child's mother or father isn't legally recognized as the child's parent.

Denying parents the ability to establish legal paternity amounts to discrimination against their children, the judge said. Without paternity rights, children lose out on child support, inheritance, visitation and other benefits, she said.

"This case isn't about the parents," said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Ken Falk, who represented two sets of parents who were granted class action status. "It's about the children."

State health registrar Lisa Erin Kellam testified that she established the policy based on her interpretation of state and federal law governing the documents.

But Falk said state officials had accepted paternity affidavits for years without Social Security numbers from those who couldn't provide them. And, he said, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had advised states that the numbers weren't necessary.

The paternity affidavits were intended to make it easier to establish paternity, not harder, he said.

"The state has taken a provision that protects children and erected a barrier that injures children," Falk said.

Deputy attorney general Adam Clay, who represented the state health agency, argued that the language of state and federal laws clearly required the Social Security numbers and it was "somewhat illogical to have a minimum requirement that isn't really a minimum requirement."

But he acknowledged that the health agency has no way of verifying whether the Social Security numbers submitted on paternity affidavits are accurate.

Clay also said requiring Social Security numbers made it easier to enforce child support obligations by making an absent parent simpler to find.

But without establishing paternity in the first place, it was impossible to collect any child support, Pratt said.

The judge also said that state policy was inconsistent because it required both parents to provide Social Security numbers on paternity affidavits, but it didn't require men to provide them for a state registry that helps unmarried fathers establish their rights.

"It just doesn't make any sense," Pratt said.

She also discounted state arguments that parents could go to court to file paternity, noting that the process was complicated and would cost money. "It's not an easy process," she said.
Ken Severson, a spokesman for the Indiana State Department of Health, said the agency would comply with the ruling.

Bryan Corbin, a spokesman for the attorney general's office, said state attorneys will confer with the health agency on whether to appeal. The state has 30 days to file a notice with the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Corbin said it was important to note that the state had no intent to discriminate against anyone with the policy.

"There was not discrimination by the state," he said. "We were trying to comply with both the state and federal law."

Falk said he hopes the state decides not to contest the injunction and allow it to become permanent.

Corbin noted that the dispute was bound to be controversial.

"Anytime you're dealing with children, it's an emotional issue," he said. "Anytime you're dealing with immigration, it's an emotional issue."


http://www.journalgazette.net/article/2 ... /110129462

Originally Posted by topsecret10

Last updated: January 28, 2011 6:48 p.m.
Indiana judge rules in favor of illegal immigrants' kids
CHARLES WILSON | Associated Press
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Indiana cannot deny paternity documents for children born in the U.S. just because their parents are illegal immigrants and don't have Social Security numbers, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt's ruling came in a lawsuit filed by parents who said a state policy requiring the numbers violates their children's rights under the 14th Amendment, which recognizes the children as U.S. citizens. Pratt issued a preliminary injunction barring the policy, which began last July.

"These newborn children are American citizens, and we have to remember that," Pratt said.

Under the new policy, state health officials require that paternity affidavits filed by unmarried parents contain both parents' Social Security numbers or be sent back to county health offices unrecorded. Without the affidavits, which establish legal paternity, a child's mother or father isn't legally recognized as the child's parent.

Denying parents the ability to establish legal paternity amounts to discrimination against their children, the judge said. Without paternity rights, children lose out on child support, inheritance, visitation and other benefits, she said.

"This case isn't about the parents," said American Civil Liberties Union attorney Ken Falk, who represented two sets of parents who were granted class action status. "It's about the children."

State health registrar Lisa Erin Kellam testified that she established the policy based on her interpretation of state and federal law governing the documents.

But Falk said state officials had accepted paternity affidavits for years without Social Security numbers from those who couldn't provide them. And, he said, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services had advised states that the numbers weren't necessary.

The paternity affidavits were intended to make it easier to establish paternity, not harder, he said.

"The state has taken a provision that protects children and erected a barrier that injures children," Falk said.

Deputy attorney general Adam Clay, who represented the state health agency, argued that the language of state and federal laws clearly required the Social Security numbers and it was "somewhat illogical to have a minimum requirement that isn't really a minimum requirement."

But he acknowledged that the health agency has no way of verifying whether the Social Security numbers submitted on paternity affidavits are accurate.

Clay also said requiring Social Security numbers made it easier to enforce child support obligations by making an absent parent simpler to find.

But without establishing paternity in the first place, it was impossible to collect any child support, Pratt said.

The judge also said that state policy was inconsistent because it required both parents to provide Social Security numbers on paternity affidavits, but it didn't require men to provide them for a state registry that helps unmarried fathers establish their rights.

"It just doesn't make any sense," Pratt said.

She also discounted state arguments that parents could go to court to file paternity, noting that the process was complicated and would cost money. "It's not an easy process," she said.
Ken Severson, a spokesman for the Indiana State Department of Health, said the agency would comply with the ruling.

Bryan Corbin, a spokesman for the attorney general's office, said state attorneys will confer with the health agency on whether to appeal. The state has 30 days to file a notice with the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Corbin said it was important to note that the state had no intent to discriminate against anyone with the policy.

"There was not discrimination by the state," he said. "We were trying to comply with both the state and federal law."

Falk said he hopes the state decides not to contest the injunction and allow it to become permanent.

Corbin noted that the dispute was bound to be controversial.

"Anytime you're dealing with children, it's an emotional issue," he said. "Anytime you're dealing with immigration, it's an emotional issue."


http://www.journalgazette.net/article/2 ... /110129462

in my Book it not right boy obama got to her

Once again , illegals trump what normal US citizens are required to do

Without paternity rights, children lose out on child support, inheritance, visitation and other benefits, she said.

This is why they must go . Where do all of these dumba$$e$ come from ?

Indiana cannot deny paternity documents for children born in the U.S. just because their parents are illegal immigrants and don't have Social Security numbers, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

This sets a very bad Legal Precedent for all other states attempting to do the same thing.
This could be big trouble for all states attempting to stop giving birth certificate to anchor babies.

Precedent
From Wikipedia,

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Indiana cannot deny paternity documents for children born in the U.S. just because their parents are illegal immigrants and don't have Social Security numbers, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

This sets a very bad Legal Precedent for all other states attempting to do the same thing.
This could be big trouble for all states attempting to stop giving birth certificate to anchor babies.

Precedent
From Wikipedia,

In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case establishing a principle or rule that a court or other judicial body may utilize when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent

Actually, it's not as troubling as you make it out to be. This decision does not set a legal "precedent" for other states when deciding a case with similar facts. A decision in Indiana is not legally binding in any other state. At best, it may be used as persuasive authority (which means judge may consider it, but cannot use it as ruling case law except in the state where the decision was rendered), but does not set legal precedent, because of the separation of states.

The only court that can set legal precedent for all 50 states would be a US Supreme Court decision. If that happens , then I will start to worry.

Some judges are lazy and just go with what others have decided so that they don't have actually do any work.

Originally Posted by topsecret10

Last updated: January 28, 2011 6:48 p.m.
Indiana judge rules in favor of illegal immigrants' kids

"These newborn children are American citizens, and we have to remember that," Pratt said.

Says who.

The 14th amendment gives Congress the power to enforce the amendment. It's time for a clarification by Congress, since federal judges don't seem to want to take the time to read the clarifications made by the authors of that amendment.
************************************************** ******************************
Americans first in this magnificent country

American jobs for American workers

Fair trade, not free trade

If parents of children born on U.S. sole are in this Country unlawfully, this means children born to such people are also illegal immigrants, regardless of how (The 14Th Amendment) is interpreted.

If we want to get this Country back in a proper order, we must stop feeling sorry for people, cease watering down our Country laws and do the right things to pull our Country back together. Otherwise the U.S. will soon fall completely a part.

Any person can see how much American citizens suffer daily, due to illegals fraud, crimes and unlawful employments. We must stop this nightmare as soon as possible.

I said it before and will say it again. This case was rigged. It shouldn't have come down to being about paternity documents but citizenship. The only thing that would have needed to be done to avoid this ruling is establish in the law a 2nd birth certificate of live birth not confering citizenship and establishing citizenship by parentage.

The parents would have their paternity documents and it would have had to be a ruling on the citizenship part.

Now it plays a middle ground arguement not addressing the issue at all but giving fodder to the illegal panders in a way.

However IF a state went forth with such a bill again and established a 2nd form of live birth w/o citizenship for children of illegal aliens this ruling should NOT be able to be used against them in any form as paternity would still be established.

I think this was setup by a pro illegal person by doing it this way. Its a clear mistake noone really for the cause could have made.