Colorado - Illegal Immigrants no longer eligble for state health care - page 7

Effective Aug. 1, state services, including the state health plans and welfare, will no longer be given to illegal immigrants in Colorado. This law, enacted by Gov. Bill Owens, in considered the... Read More

  1. by   HM2VikingRN
    a review of some of the traditions of acquiring citizenship in the us.

    why the problem arises: in general, the right to acquire citizenship at birth derives from two distinct legal traditions. the first is "jus soli", an anglo-saxon concept, that is used by great britain, the united states, and others. the second is "jus sanguinis", a fundamentally different concept, which dates at least to roman times and is used by most of the other countries of the world. the two are not congruent and therefore do not cover all of the same individuals in every circumstance. care must be taken to ensure that no one is left out.


    jus sanguinis:
    under "jus sanguinis" the nexus that is recognized by the law is the link between the parent and the child. a birth brings an automatic continuity of the citizenship of the parent to the child by virtue of this blood (sanguinis) tie. the place of birth, therefore, does not create any legal problem in the continuity of citizenship. no principle, other than "jus sanguinis", needs to be invoked for human rights to be transmitted equally and ubiquitously, unless, of course, a government chooses to endow only expatriates of one sex with this "jus sanguinis" right.
    jus soli:
    in "jus soli" countries the nexus recognized by the law is that between the child and the location of birth. the place of birth alone qualifies the child to automatically receive that country's citizenship, normally irrespective of the citizenship or nationality of the parents when the child is born.
    the wisdom of the american founding fathers:
    the founding fathers of the united states carried on this tradition of adding "jus sanguinis" provisions to the basic "jus soli" citizenship legislation. they knew that u.s. citizens were going to be living and establishing families outside of the united states. to protect the rights of such children and promote the integrity of their families the first congress in 1790 decided that u.s. citizenship would be automatically acquired at birth by any child born abroad to a u.s. citizen father, provided only that the father had previously "had a residence" in the united states. for the following 150 years, a u.s. citizen father could transmit citizenship to a child born abroad by meeting this very simple requirement. this same rule was subsequently extended to u.s. citizen mothers in 1934.
    a very interesting read. jus soli is a common law principle that is apprently derived from english common law which is a cornerstone of us law. place of birth gives you citizenship. (it is almost feudal in the sense that you are tied to the land and the land is tied to you.) given that place of birth has been one of the two essential ways to gain citizenship since the first congress of the current us constitution i think that arguably anyone born in the us has a right to citizenship/nationality under the us constitution. elsewhere in this article the author discusses that the us has been a signatory of un conventions that establish that all people have a right to both nationality and citizenship. given that we have been somewhat inconsistent in our compliance with these treaties it still points to the idea that by adopting these treaties in many ways we have adopted them as part of our own laws under the constitution. as to the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments these were the reconstruction amendments that laid out civil rights for emancipated slaves but it is my understanding that historically these amendments have been used fairly freely by the courts to expand civil rights for all people in the us not as a basis for limiting civil and legal rights. as i said before, i think that arguably citizenship by place of birth is a constitutional right dating to the earliest days of our country and that all laws passed since that time as well as implementing regulations promulgated by the executive branch have operated from that precept. (regulations are an interpretation of law by the executive branch that ultimately do have the force of law.) congress may try to redefine this method of attaining citizenship but i think that the law would be found both unconstitutional and unenforcable in the federal courts.

    see united states vs. wong kim ark (1898):
    the court ruled, in a 6-2 decision, that wong kim ark was in fact a u.s. citizen, and that the united states government could not deny citizenship to anyone born in the united states-even children of foreigners.
    the 14th amendment's citizenship clause, according to the court's majority, had to be interpreted in light of english common law tradition that had excluded from citizenship at birth only two classes of people: (1) children born to foreign diplomats, and (2) children born to enemy forces engaged in hostile occupation of the country's territory. the majority held that the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase in the 14th amendment specifically encompassed these conditions (plus a third condition, namely, that indian tribes were not considered subject to u.s. jurisdiction[color=#003399][4])-and that since none of these conditions applied to wong's situation, wong was a u.s. citizen, regardless of the fact that his parents were not u.s. citizens (and were, in fact, ineligible ever to become u.s. citizens because of the chinese exclusion act).

    see natural born citizen:
    in the united states, a person is considered to be born a citizen either due to place of birth within u.s. territorial jurisdiction (jus soli) or through descent from a u.s. citizen (jus sanguinis), or through some combination of those two elements.

    this decision has been revisited on several occasions and the court has upheld it each time.
  2. by   gauge14iv
    Don't get me wrong - I don't want them here ILLEGALLY.
  3. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from lizz
    Personally ... I used to be sympathetic to illegals until the one day march/walkout. That completely changed my mind.

    You come here illegally, you get free healthcare, schools, ... all kinds of social services ... and you're going to DEMAND that we give you more when you're breaking our laws? I don't think so.

    They go on and on about how the state of California once belonged to Mexico and that it belongs to them now. If California did belong to Mexico THEY WOULDN'T WANT IT ANYMORE. They'd be illegally going to over to other states instead.

    The last straw was putting the National Anthem in Spanish. Enough already.

    I complete lost my sympathy for those people on that day.

    :typing
    Was the Immigration protest any different than the civil rights marches of the 60's? They were marching to protest discrimination as well as to petition for a redress of grievances from government. (I believe that President Bush sang the National Anthem in Spanish during his first campaign. Why was it ok for Candidate Bush to sing the anthem in spanish and not people who are seeking to express their point of view.) I personally prefer that it be sung in English but as long as the Anthem was accurately translated into Espanol they were paying respect to our constitution. The showing of a Mexican Flag was no different than the Sons of Norway marching in a Fourth of July parade under a Norwegian flag. My point is not to be provocative but more to illustrate the importance of protecting everyone's civil rights.
  4. by   Sheri257
    Quote from HM2Viking
    My point is not to be provocative but more to illustrate the importance of protecting everyone's civil rights.
    Yeah ... illegals "rights" to take our jobs, drive down our wages and consume our taxpayer funded services so corporations can make bigger bucks.

    Their "rights" to get free healthcare at ER's to the point that ER's have to shut down so the entire population has to suffer.

    C'mon. There's no way this even comes close to the civil rights movement.

    Nobody is discriminating against these people because of their race.

    They're breaking the law!

    This is absurd.

    :typing
    Last edit by Sheri257 on Aug 26, '06
  5. by   cardiacRN2006
    Quote from lizz
    Personally ... I used to be sympathetic to illegals until the one day march/walkout. That completely changed my mind.

    You come here illegally, you get free healthcare, schools, ... all kinds of social services ... and you're going to DEMAND that we give you more when you're breaking our laws? I don't think so.

    They go on and on about how the state of California once belonged to Mexico and that it somehow belongs to them now. If California did belong to Mexico THEY WOULDN'T WANT IT ANYMORE. They'd be illegally going to over to other states instead.

    The last straw was putting the National Anthem in Spanish. Enough already.

    I complete lost my sympathy for those people on that day.

    :typing

    I agree 100%!
    To actually demand that we don't call them illegal, to demand better healthcare than the average American receives, to demand that we teach their children in Spanish....and to boot, if we didn't give in to their demands they promised to do their best to hurt us finacially!
    Doesn't sound like a group of law-abiding citizens that I want to give access to special citizenship.
    There is a process for citizenship-why do illegal mexicans get to demand some sort of special treatment for obtaining it? Do people in Rwanda get the same treatment? Last I checked, there was no genocide in Mexico. No, all the Mexicans are being killed by the sun in the desert because we allow this beast to get out of control.

    Out of curiosity HM2Viking, what state do you live in?
  6. by   Cococure
    Quote from thecommuter
    no offense is intended, but i wholly agree with this new law. i am from california, a state that has been financially devastated by providing costly services such as healthcare, education, and social programs to illegal immigrants.

    six years ago i was a grocery store clerk in a city that had a large immigrant population. i would cash the payroll checks of these individuals who always provided a resident alien card as a form of identification. the groceries would be paid for with food stamps, the baby formula and cereals would be paid for with wic vouchers, and a welfare check would be cashed at the end of the entire transaction. the aforementioned scenario would occur multiple times throughout my workshifts at the supermarket. my honest opinion is that illegal immigrants utilize more services than they reasonably pay for.

    just to clear what i have highlighted above. if you have a resident alien card/green card you are not an illegal immigrant you are a legal resident and as a legal resident you pay taxes. i am not a proponent of the "free for all" healthcare or social services there should be limitations. i have also seen the above situation being abused by american citizens. if someone has never come from a 3rd world country where the us dollar can do so much, well, you will never understand why they come here in droves. it sometimes seems so easy to blame an ethnic group for driving down wages when the wages or the jobs that they do many citizens would never consider doing. for example chicken factories and farms in ga employ many illegal immigrants simply because they cannot find other workers. the road to being a us citizen is a long, challenging and expensive one and it takes an average of 10 or more years; that is if you meet their requirements and ofcourse most illegal immigrants would not!!
  7. by   EDValerieRN
    Quote from lizz
    Yeah ... illegals "rights" to take our jobs, drive down our wages and consume our taxpayer funded services so corporations can make bigger bucks.

    :typing
    Immigrants are not driving down our wages. Congress is, in two ways: Not raising minimum wage ($5.15/hr??!! Are you kidding?!) and not holding corporations responsible for hiring these immigrants.

    Immigrants aren't coming here because they WANT to ruin our country and screw us over. They are coming over here because they were invited by our CEO's.
  8. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from Cococure


    Just to clear what i have highlighted above. If you have a resident alien card/green card you are not an illegal immigrant you are a legal resident and as a legal resident you pay taxes. I am not a proponent of the "free for all" healthcare or social services there should be limitations. I have also seen the above situation being abused by American citizens. If someone has never come from a 3rd world country where the US dollar can do so much, well, you will never understand why they come here in droves. It sometimes seems so easy to blame an ethnic group for driving down wages when the wages or the jobs that they do many citizens would never consider doing. For example chicken factories and farms in GA employ many illegal immigrants simply because they cannot find other workers. The road to being a US citizen is a long, challenging and expensive one and it takes an average of 10 or more years; that is if you meet their requirements and ofcourse most illegal immigrants would not!!
    Remittances to their home countries are why they come. From what I have read many workers come up here just to make enough money to support their families back home but do not really start out with the intent of living here.

    I was reading over at the ACLU website about how the ACLU has actually filed a lawsuit on behalf of several immigrants who have completed the steps to citizenship but are awaiting FBI clearance that has no time limit for completion. Part of fixing the immigration mix will require that Congress clarify and simplify the steps to legal entry for the purpose of residency vs that of people who are willing to come as temporary workers.

    Frankly, it will be much cheaper and more effective to aggressively enforce our current punitive sanctions against THE EMPLOYERS of illegal immigrants than it will be to close our borders. (If you build a 50 foot fence the next person will bring a 50 foot ladder. Molly Ivins.)

    The other prong of solving this problem is that we need to aggressively demand of our trading partners (Nafta, Cafta etc.) that their labor laws require environmental and pay protections on a par with what our own US workers enjoy. (If you level the playing field that will reduce the supply of workers seeking to come North to make a living that will support their families.)
  9. by   Multicollinearity
    Quote from EDValerieRN
    Immigrants are not driving down our wages. Congress is, in two ways: Not raising minimum wage ($5.15/hr??!! Are you kidding?!) and not holding corporations responsible for hiring these immigrants.

    Immigrants aren't coming here because they WANT to ruin our country and screw us over. They are coming over here because they were invited by our CEO's.
    It's not quite that simple. Yes, the minimum wage situation is an outrage. It should be raised. Still, illegal aliens do suppress wages for a certain subset of American workers. Most economists (even liberal ones) will tell you that United States citizens who have not graduated from high school and/or are below average as far as IQ are competing with and losing jobs to illegal aliens. In yesteryear Americana, the not-so-bright among us could work unskilled labor jobs and get by. Now, our not-so-brights (through no fault of their own) are losing these jobs to illegals.
  10. by   hope3456
    This is an interesting article on illegal immigration - it was in the rocky mountain post this morning

    http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drm...946326,00.html
  11. by   Multicollinearity
    I live in Southern Arizona. Last election, I went to a local political forum where the local interfaith counsel invites church members to ask questions of those running for office. About 1/2 of those in attendance were immigrants and their activist representatives. Many spoke Spanish and asked their questions thru interpreters. All of their questions were asking the candidates what they would give them. They call illegal aliens "undocumented immigrants." Examples of the questions:

    "Will you make sure that undocumented immigrants can get driver's licenses?"

    "We want health benefits. Will you make sure undocumented immigrants get medicaid?"

    "We want food stamps. Will you promise we get them?"

    "We want our AFDC. Will you promise we get it?"

    "We want in-state tuition at for undocumented immigrants. Do you promise and pledge?"

    "Will you pledge to exempt those whose first language is Spanish from the AIMS test for high school graduation?" (the AIMS test is an Arizona standardized test which is required in order to graduate)

    Now as a liberal democrat myself, I was astonished. It was one giant gimme gimme grab session. Please do not assume that those who wish to enforce immigration laws are cold or bigoted. It is crazy living here near the border. The cost of illegal immigration is a epic drain on the state budget.
  12. by   cardiacRN2006
    I don't buy the argument that hiring Americans will force the companies to move off shore. Here, the illegals are doing construction, working on farm land, or doing landscape. We aren't going to move the farm to Mexico to get cheaper labor, and the homes need to be built here, not in Mexico. It's just another excuse to justify the 'need' for them being here.
    That article says that possibly 30% of illegals have forged papers....I believe the percentage is much, much higher.
  13. by   TrudyRN
    Quote from SaharaOnyxRN
    I agree with you there. I am against illegal immigration. But, I agree, we with you on that. If we don't vaccinate then that puts all children at risk. I wonder how many of the migrant children in my daughter's school would test positive if they got a TB skin test. That's another issue that I wonder about.

    Mexico (and maybe other countries) gives the BCG vaccine against TB so probably all of them would be + and they should not get the PPD test, as they have been vaccinated. Makes me wonder why we dont vaccinate our children here with BCG.

close