Trump Vows to End Birthright Citizenship

No, it's less expensive and less complicated for the state.

 

.

 

Why, if "parents would have to prove that they were in the country legally?" What does that have to do with the state?

 

You need mechanisms in place to collect and process this information. All that costs money.

Every single US birth will have to go through that process and the process will either have to be a federal process or every state will have to conform to a minimum federal standard - either way that'll be a big change to the existing process.

 

I don't think it has been addressed before...All I know is that for a hundred years after the amendment babies born to non citizens in this country were NOT considered citizens. Then without statute, further amendment, or anything of legal basis that I can find they were....What changed? My thought is that progressive electoral strategy changed, and for some reason republicans accepted it. If you can find out why, I'd sure be interested to see why.

 

How do you know that? And you specified the "1960's." Why?

 

Show me where this was happening before say 1965...

 

The term “birthright citizenship” refers to the current practice of considering children born in the United States to automatically acquire U.S. citizenship. This issue is also commonly termed the “anchor baby” issue. These terms describe an issue that is related to and complicates administration of our immigration law because our immigration admission criteria is based so heavily on family relationships and U.S. citizens are able to sponsor extended family members for legal immigration status.

An anchor baby is defined as an offspring of an illegal immigrant or other non-citizen, who under current legal interpretation becomes a United States citizen at birth. These children may instantly qualify for welfare and other state and local benefit programs. Additionally with the passage of 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 twenty-one (See also Chain Migration). The sheer numbers are staggering. In Stockton, California (2003), 70 percent of the 2,300 babies, born in San Joaquin General Hospital’s maternity ward were anchor babies. 1

Interpreting the 14th Amendment
In Parkland Memorial Hospital Dallas, the second busiest maternity ward in the United States, 70% of the women giving birth were illegal aliens. That added up to 11,200 babies for which Medicaid kicked in 34.5 million dollars to deliver these babies, the feds another 9.5 million and Dallas taxpayers tossed in 31.3 million. The average illegal patient is 25 years and giving birth to her second anchor baby.
-Reiniers, John. Hernando Today, "Anchor Babies." January 25, 2008.

According to the Constitution's 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868 to ensure citizenship for the newly emancipated African Americans, "all persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude from automatic citizenship American-born persons whose allegiance to the United States was incomplete. For example, Native Americans were excluded from American citizenship because of their tribal jurisdiction. Also not subject to American jurisdiction were foreign visitors, ambassadors, consuls, and their babies born here. In the case of illegal aliens, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Therefore, some Constitutional scholars argue that the completeness of the allegiance to the United States is impaired and logically precludes automatic citizenship. However, this issue has never been directly decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Price We Pay
"Make no mistake, Americans are happy to welcome immigrants who follow our immigration laws and see a better life here. America is far more welcoming and tolerant of newcomers than any virtually any nation on earth. But our modern welfare state creates pervasive incentives for immigrants, incentives that cloud the issue of why people chose to come here. We cannot afford to open our pocketbooks to the rest of the world. We must end the pervasive incentives that encourage immigrants to come here illegally, including the anchor baby incentive.
-Representative Ron Paul, Texas Straight Talk October 02, 2006

FAIR estimates there are about 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and the size of the illegal alien population (13 million in 200 adjusted downward to account for the estimate that females are a smaller share of the illegal alien population than the foreign-born population.2

What Does This Mean?
Higher Taxes
The federal government has control over immigration law for the United States. By not correcting this mis-application of the 14thAmendment, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.

Disrespect for the rule of law
Congress, by failing to act on legislation aimed at correcting the interpretation of citizenship by birth, in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. The United States is unusual in its offer to extend citizenship to anyone born on its soil. Other developed countries have changed their citizenship practice to eliminate the problems caused by the practice of birthright citizenship.1 The anchor baby problem has grown to such large proportions that the United States can no longer afford to ignore it. The logical first step for correcting the problem is for Congress to adopt legislation clarifying the meaning of the 14th amendment.

http://www.fairus.org/issue/societal-impact/birthright-citizenship

 

I don't understand what the 34.5, 9.5 and 31.3 million dollars is spent on, other than food and medical supplies
used during the time in hospital. It adds up to more than 6 thousand dollars per baby! That does not add up!

 

I can't but what are you using to say that it wasn't?

 

6k sounds about right.

 

What do you suppose 6k is spent on?

I can't but what are you using to say that it wasn't?

 

Suppose? It's the cost of having a baby at the hospital....

There are no reports or stats that an anchor baby problem existed before the '60s...

"As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30] "

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

 

Says who?

 

Oh my...really?

 

Yeah. Is 6k a stated average cost or something?

 

Pretty close I'd say...

 

Any ideas what it is spent on?

 

Sure: https://dailycaller.com/2018/01/08/...re-critical-to-dems-future-electoral-success/

"The fight to protect Dreamers is not only a moral imperative, it is also a critical component of the Democratic Party’s future electoral success."

 

Why don't they take airplane currently?

What about the other half?

 

All that says is that finding a solution to the dreamers is going to be a critical componant of the Democratic appeal to hispanics. Of course the Republicans could get the same benefit if they weren't so focused in building their white racist base.

 

So clearly you are incapable of talking about the other half!

 

Where in the memo does it say "appeal to hispanics" or something even REMOTELY along those lines?

What is your evidence that they are focused on racists?

 

You have to learn to read articles with even a tiny bit of comprehension. And as for evidence of focus on racists the entire caravan/ Mexiican border phony hysteria is all the evidence anyone needs. And now he is doing it again in Mississippi.

 

If your argument requires the word clearly, then your argument is probably not very clear.