Thread: Targeting illegal immigrants

Notice this editorial has the correct identification of "illegal" but the message of it is .....well, off-base.

Editorial
Targeting illegal immigrants

A proposed California ballot initiative takes aim at U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants.
May 9, 2009


What is it about illegal immigration that unhinges otherwise reasonable people, leading them to propose inhumane and unworkable remedies to the problem? Yes, it is frustrating to have 11 million or 12 million people living in the shadows of our society. We get it: They shouldn't have come here illegally. They should have worked through proper channels and not jumped ahead of other immigrants seeking a life in the United States. Furthermore, this is a moment of profound economic tension and competition for resources. Driven by necessity, American citizens are haunting day-labor sites and taking jobs in orchards and fields alongside the illegal immigrants who once did most of such work.

But that's no excuse for legalizing discrimination, which is precisely what would happen under a state ballot initiative now in the signature-gathering stage and targeted for next year's June election. If passed, it would require all parents of newborns in California to prove U.S. citizenship or legal residency in order to receive their baby's birth certificate. Those who could not would have to pay a $75 fee for a certificate noting the child's "Birth to a Foreign Parent." The U.S. Department of Homeland Security would be alerted to the discrepancy. And finally, in willful ignorance of previous California Supreme Court rulings, the measure would attempt to deny health benefits to illegal immigrants. Those are federally mandated benefits, beyond the reach of state law.

Of course, the real goal of Taxpayer Revolution, the anti-tax group that's sponsoring the initiative, isn't just to slap a scarlet letter on these children, or even merely to intimidate pregnant women to the extent that they forgo medical help when in the throes of labor. Capitalizing on the heightened anti-immigrant sentiment that always accompanies hard economic times, the group's ultimateaim is to undo generations of constitutional law and deny the children of illegal immigrants citizenship.

Although neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor Congress has ever explicitly ruled on whether the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment, the assumption has long been that they are. If there are genuine doubts about whether that assumption is wrong, then let's have that debate. But don't sneak it into an initiative promoted as a tool to "reduce crime" and keep deported criminal "aliens" from returning to the U.S. because their citizen children are here.

This measure doesn't consider the weight of law, custom and the complex social ramifications involved in bestowing and withdrawing citizenship. It's just simplistic and mean.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/edi ... 2290.story

Immigration crisis videos
http://www.alipac.us/ftopict-155851.html

EVERYONE NEEDS TO LISTEN TO ALL THESE VIDEOS Exclamation

Although neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor Congress has ever explicitly ruled on whether the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment, the assumption has long been that they are. If there are genuine doubts about whether that assumption is wrong, then let's have that debate. But don't sneak it into an initiative promoted as a tool to "reduce crime" and keep deported criminal "aliens" from returning to the U.S. because their citizen children are here.

How can people be so blind. California is BROKE, period. They are out of money, get it people? The can no longer afford medical, education, welfare, food stamps for the millions who are crushing their state. How can these people be so blind? I think it is about time we did decide on citizenship. It couldn't happen under a worse group leading the fed, but I think it is our only hope

Driven by necessity, American citizens are haunting day-labor sites and taking jobs in orchards and fields alongside the illegal immigrants who once did most of such work.

Wait a minute. Didn't Tamar Jacoby just claim newspapers were not reporting Americans were lining up to do this work? In fact it was in this same newspaper, the LA Times!!!

Let's see if that anti-American traitor Jacoby issues a retraction.

Wow! This article was not biased at all. I guess (using the analogy of someone breaking into your house) if a pregnant woman broke into my house and had her child there it would have to take my family name and be considered a part of my family and I would be responsible for it?

Capitalizing on the heightened anti-immigrant sentiment that always accompanies hard economic times, the group's ultimateaim is to undo generations of constitutional law and deny the children of illegal immigrants citizenship.

Although neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor Congress has ever explicitly ruled on whether the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment, the assumption has long been that they are. If there are genuine doubts about whether that assumption is wrong, then let's have that debate. But don't sneak it into an initiative promoted as a tool to "reduce crime" and keep deported criminal "aliens" from returning to the U.S. because their citizen children are here.

This measure doesn't consider the weight of law, custom and the complex social ramifications involved in bestowing and withdrawing citizenship.

Seems the Times is going apoplectic that this might pass and withstand court challenges. They contradict themselves several times.

"Undo generations of Constitutional law", yet "the US Supreme Court nor Congress has ever explicitly ruled". So illegal loving Times, if the Supreme Court nor Congress has ever ruled, where did all that "Constitutional law" come from?

As the Times notes, anchor babies citizenship is based on "custom" and "assumptions", not the "weight of law" which they wished existed but does not!!

Now the Supreme Court might overturn this on some technicality, but that does not mean a better written initiative or a law from Congress won't eventually withstand Supreme Court muster. And that upsets the illegal loving Times.

Birthright citizenship for illegal aliens is based on precedent set by the interpretation of the Wong Kim Ark Decision by Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray

Originally Posted by Richard

Birthright citizenship for illegal aliens is set by precedent based on the interpretation of Wong Kim Ark by Supreme Court Justice Horace Gray

The Supreme Court in that case stated it specifically applied to Chinese legal immigrants only. And that's the way the Executive Branch saw it for 60 years without opposition as they deported the US born children of illegal aliens in the 30's and 50's, and never let them re-enter despite claims of "US Citizenship". In the 60's the Executive Branch reversed and decided they were Citizens.

In other words the only thing that currently gives these children US Citizenship is a Presidential policy decision. No law, and no Supreme Court decision does. As such a Presidential policy reversal could end the practice, although to pass Supreme Court muster it would be best to tie it to increased enforcement like mandatory e-verify.

Good. I am glad someone is finally doing something about ilegal immigrants having babies here. They are NOT American citizens and should NOT receive any benefits.

Although neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor Congress has ever explicitly ruled on whether the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants are entitled to citizenship under the 14th Amendment, the assumption has long been that they are. If there are genuine doubts about whether that assumption is wrong, then let's have that debate. But don't sneak it into an initiative promoted as a tool to "reduce crime" and keep deported criminal "aliens" from returning to the U.S. because their citizen children are here.

Then lets get it on!! Lets discuss this issue. Answer this and you answer alot of questions. Coz I don't buy it. If that were the case, don't you think people would have planned vacations and been dropping babies since travel became easier?