14th amendment debate (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


thornhappy -> 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 4:58:27 AM)

Hi folks--

I'm looking at an article here about the debate on Senator Graham's remarks on whether the 14th amendment should still grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants. [edit: found this quote interesting, since it's often mentioned around here: "Mr. Graham’s proposal revived a popular misunderstanding: In the often heated debate over birthright citizenship, pundits refer to the problem of “anchor babies,” and talk show callers express frustration that pregnant women could cross the border from Mexico illegally, then rely on their American citizen newborns to put them immediately on a path to citizenship.

In fact, under immigration law American citizen children must wait until they are 21 years old to apply for legal residency for their parents. Also, most of the illegal immigrants who have children who are American citizens have not recently arrived."]

I find this a hoot because at the height of Schwarzenegger's popularity in California, there were rumbles in the Republican party about petitioning the government to change citizenship rules so he could run for President. 

He's also been quoted as saying the AZ law was "a mess" and "something I would never do."  His position is that the Federal enforcement (in the presence of crossings, gun running, drug running, and human trafficking) is grossly inadequate but it's a Federal problem.  (My opinion too, but no one wants to really pony up the cost of closing that border, and there's a general neglect of the Northern Border.  There was a terrorist group that was caught up there (remember the guys who planned to bomb LAX?) and that was at a secure crossing.)

(BTW, he probably violated his B-1 visa while training with Joe Wieder.  Making him an illegal immigrant.  However, enforcement at the time was pretty lax.)




LadyEllen -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 5:31:41 AM)

Arnold Schwarzenegger will be US President one day - and who knows, this perceived need for constitutional change may be the backdoor by which he is allowed in.

Its difficult politically to argue that the child of an illegal immigrant should have the right to run for President whilst someone like Schwarzenegger who has made a significant contribution to the US should not have that right.

E




vincentML -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 6:02:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

Arnold Schwarzenegger will be US President one day - and who knows, this perceived need for constitutional change may be the backdoor by which he is allowed in.

Its difficult politically to argue that the child of an illegal immigrant should have the right to run for President whilst someone like Schwarzenegger who has made a significant contribution to the US should not have that right.

E


But the child of an illegal immigrant is not an illegal citizen. Also, who is to predict what the future "significant contribution" will be of any child? Furthermore, can you imagine if Schwarzenegger were Iranian or other Islamic? Oh, the wailing and gnashing of teeth that would arise at your suggestion he would be president. lmao!

When a political party has no program to help a nation arise from recession they make points with their base by going after the innocent. First they bemoaned a helping hand for those unemployed by happenstance, then they attack public employees who served them faithfully through the good times, and now they rail at children. [8|]




Moonhead -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 6:15:35 AM)

My own feeling would be that the shift from somehow attempting to address the things in your society that don't work to the narcisstitic bleating that all bad things are what happens inside people's heads is the whole of what happens that's bad.




LadyEllen -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 6:22:08 AM)

But Vincent, that the child of an illegal immigrant might automatically become a citizen by virtue of a criminal act on the part of his parents to acquire that status for him must be a problem and its one akin to any other situation where a party gains a substantial benefit through the criminal act of another who intended for that party to make that gain.

In other circumstances people would be arrested and sentenced and the gain confiscated - the difference here is that it is a newborn child who gains the advantage, quite innocently and without any realisation of the gain, and it should not be in the interests of the child (as we see it) for him to be deprived of that advantage notwithstanding the constitutional position.

E




Elisabella -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 6:46:35 AM)

quote:

In fact, under immigration law American citizen children must wait until they are 21 years old to apply for legal residency for their parents. Also, most of the illegal immigrants who have children who are American citizens have not recently arrived."]


The biggest problem with this logic is what happens to the kid if the parent is deported.




vincentML -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 7:34:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyEllen

But Vincent, that the child of an illegal immigrant might automatically become a citizen by virtue of a criminal act on the part of his parents to acquire that status for him must be a problem and its one akin to any other situation where a party gains a substantial benefit through the criminal act of another who intended for that party to make that gain.

In other circumstances people would be arrested and sentenced and the gain confiscated - the difference here is that it is a newborn child who gains the advantage, quite innocently and without any realisation of the gain, and it should not be in the interests of the child (as we see it) for him to be deprived of that advantage notwithstanding the constitutional position.

E


If I understand you to say the child should not suffer for the sins of the parents we are in agreement. Ellen.

Elisabella makes a most salient point. Imagine illegals who have been here fifteen years and have a fourteen year old child born a native citizen. Those parents live in fear of a workplace raid that will lead to deportation of one or both parents. What happens to the child? This is not a hypothetical, sad to say.

Some may argue the parents should have thought of that possibility when they first crossed the border and they may have but probably did not anticipate the predictament in their migratory run for a better life.

Incidently, I don't think it is a criminal act. I believe deportation occurs as a civil action. Perhaps someone can clarify the issue.




kdsub -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 8:38:17 AM)

I am thinking out loud with no statistics but I wonder if the real idea in having a baby in the US is not for citizenship but welfare benefits?

Butch




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 8:55:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I am thinking out loud with no statistics but I wonder if the real idea in having a baby in the US is not for citizenship but welfare benefits?

Butch


Illegal aliens are not eligible for welfare. Their children are, if they were born in the US, but states are supposed to report illegal parents to the federal government. Some still slip through the cracks, but theoretically an illegal parent applying for welfare on behalf of their legal child is subject to deportation. It seems unlikely any illegal would risk that just for a few bucks in food stamps.




Musicmystery -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 8:57:26 AM)

Exactly. And a point the "they're bleeding us dry" fanactics ignore.

Illegals tend to keep a low profile, not go around applying for services.





kdsub -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 9:16:53 AM)

Panda I think you may be wrong... after you posted I ran a search on children of illegal aliens and welfare benefits... you should do the same. I would list links but there are so many I think you can look for yourself.

Butch




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 9:25:14 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

Panda I think you may be wrong... after you posted I ran a search on children of illegal aliens and welfare benefits... you should do the same.


I did. Illegal aliens are not eligible for welfare benefits, and states are required to report illegal applicants to the federal government. It's been the law since at least 1996.




kdsub -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 9:39:22 AM)

I am talking about the children not the parents...search again... it cost California $64,000,000 in 2009 for children born in the US of illegal aliens. That is a pretty good amount on a state that is bankrupt.

Butch




ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 9:45:03 AM)

I don't understand what that has to do with your original post, in which you speculated that illegal immigrants may be having children in order to get welfare. I don't know what you're trying to say here. 




kdsub -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 10:03:23 AM)

It seems plain to me that there may be more than one reason for illegal aliens to have their children in the US. One reason I believe is to supplement their incomes with benefits such as food stamps... housing programs…education and other welfare benefits.

They can and do receive these benefits because of the citizenship of their children.

Butch




thornhappy -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 10:19:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Elisabella

quote:

In fact, under immigration law American citizen children must wait until they are 21 years old to apply for legal residency for their parents. Also, most of the illegal immigrants who have children who are American citizens have not recently arrived."]


The biggest problem with this logic is what happens to the kid if the parent is deported.

It's been happening for years; it was a large problem when Agriprocessors was raided in Postville.




vincentML -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 10:35:28 AM)

Immigration has always been considered a net positive in cost/benefit outcomes for the States. You give only the costs, Butch, not the benefits, e.g. additional consumers and tax payers. And you do not detail the costs. Give us a cost/benefit analysis.

In 1924 Congress passed the Immigration Limitation Act which severly curtailed immigration of Italians, Jews, and Eastern Europeans..... five short years later the Stock Market crashed and banks went belly up. The first bank to go under was one that catered to immigrants in NYC. Now, I'm just sayin [:D][:D][:D]




thornhappy -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 10:44:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
I am talking about the children not the parents...search again... it cost California $64,000,000 in 2009 for children born in the US of illegal aliens. That is a pretty good amount on a state that is bankrupt.

Butch

Say, Butch, where are you numbers from?  It seems like a hell of a lot of the numbers out there are from private advocacy groups, and few from actual government sources.  The GAO had a good report out there but it was only good to 1994; back then about 3% of AFDC and food stamps (total budget about 1.5 billion) went to children of illegal immigrants, and that's paid by the Fed, not the state.  California, Texas, Arizona, and New York were the primary recipients.




vincentML -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 10:47:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thornhappy

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub
I am talking about the children not the parents...search again... it cost California $64,000,000 in 2009 for children born in the US of illegal aliens. That is a pretty good amount on a state that is bankrupt.

Butch

Say, Butch, where are you numbers from?  It seems like a hell of a lot of the numbers out there are from private advocacy groups, and few from actual government sources.  The GAO had a good report out there but it was only good to 1994; back then about 3% of AFDC and food stamps (total budget about 1.5 billion) went to children of illegal immigrants, and that's paid by the Fed, not the state.  California, Texas, Arizona, and New York were the primary recipients.



$64 Million does seem like an outsized number.




tazzygirl -> RE: 14th amendment debate (8/7/2010 10:51:39 AM)

I have read this before... perhaps someone could explain what this all means..

From the TANF website
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A State may claim the expenditures for illegal aliens for MOE
purposes only if the law in question is broad enough to encompass TANF
eligibility. The only avenue for claiming expenditures for illegal
aliens in the definition of eligible families in section
409(a)(7)(B)(i)(IV) is under the criteria of families eligible for
assistance under TANF. Once a State affirms that illegal aliens are
eligible for TANF assistance, then the State may provide a State or
local public benefit as part of TANF or a separate State program. For
example, if the State's law only authorizes for child care to be
provided to illegal aliens through a non-TANF program (e.g., CCDF), it
could not claim any such expenditures as MOE. However, if its law
authorizes child care provided through TANF for illegal immigrants, it
may claim such expenditures as MOE. Or, if it provides such a service
to illegal aliens through a separate State program and not the TANF
program, but the illegal aliens are eligible for both, it may claim
those expenditures as MOE.

A State may claim qualified expenditures for the individuals
described in the prior two paragraphs for MOE purposes because these
are the aliens who are either eligible for TANF benefits or lawfully
present in this country and eligible for TANF assistance, but for the
application of title IV of PRWORA. If a State decides to restrict alien
eligibility for State public benefits, then it may only claim MOE for
qualified segregated TANF expenditures or qualified separate State
program expenditures made with respect to the excepted qualified aliens
mentioned in section 412.

Two limited circumstances exist in which it may be possible for a
State to help all aliens. These circumstances apply regardless of
funding source, i.e., whether a State uses Federal TANF, State TANF, or
separate State program funds. These circumstances derive from section
401(b) and (c) and section 411(b) and (c) of PRWORA, which describe
alien eligibility for Federal public benefits and State or local public
benefits, respectively.
First, both sections 401(b) and 411(b) of PRWORA affirm that States
may provide certain noncash Federal or State and local public benefits
to any alien. Such benefits are those necessary for the protection of
life or safety and include those specified by the Attorney General in a
notice dated August 23, 1996 (AG Order No. 2049-96, 61 FR 45985
available on line at /news/welfare/wr/
830fdreg.htm). In the notice, the Attorney General specified the kinds
of noncash government-funded community programs, services, or
assistance that are necessary for protection of life or safety and for
which all aliens continue to be eligible. However, for all aliens to be
eligible, sections 401(b)(1)(D) and 411(b)(4) both state that neither
the government-funded programs, services, or assistance provided, nor
the cost of such assistance, may be conditioned on the individual
recipient's income or resources. While such service may meet one of the
purposes of TANF and may be provided as part of TANF or a separate
State program, a State may claim toward MOE only qualified expenditures
with respect to eligible (needy) families. Therefore, to claim any
expenditures that meet the Attorney General's specifications for life
and safety, a State must have a sound methodology that enables it to
identify and claim only the portion of total qualified expenditures for
benefits that it has provided to eligible families.

Second, section 401(c) defines a Federal public benefit and section
411(c) defines a State or local public benefit. Both sections use the
same definition. The August 4, 1998, Federal Register notice that
identified TANF as a Federal public benefit expressly states that not
``all benefits or services provided by these programs are `Federal
public benefits' and require verification.'' Because sections 401(c)
and 411(c) use the same wording to define a public benefit, we believe
this statement may also apply to benefits provided with segregated
State TANF funds and separate State program funds. When a benefit is
not a Federal or State or local public benefit, a State is not
statutorily bound to restrict eligibility to certain aliens and can
provide that benefit to all aliens.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/law-reg/finalrule/tanfru_3.htm

Seems to me, in their final ruling, that illegal parents are eligible for benefits under state guidelines.




Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125