Come to America to Have your Baby!! - page 4

Los Angeles, California, national and world news, jobs, real estate, cars - Los Angeles Times (The link to this article doesnt work, type 'medicaid' in the search engine and the article is... Read More

  1. by   imenid37
    The undocumented worker who works in a factory or picking fruit, etc. and delivers is an entirely different story than the woman who breezes in 1st class from the Mid-East or S. America to deliver. I don't have a problem w/ the poor person who can't afford care and is here trying to survive. The employers who are benefitting from those folks should foot the bill. I have a huge problem w/ the princess who flies in. I guess you have to deliver her. Why not make the person (parent) financially obligated for the bill or otherwise they can't return to the U.S.? For example, you can't send vaccine records, birth certificate, etc. unless the financial obligations have been met.
  2. by   hope3456
    I don't have a problem w/ the poor person who can't afford care and is here trying to survive. [B]The employers who are benefitting from those folks should foot the bill.

    Very good point.
  3. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from hm2viking
    no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the united states, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president

    this phrasing certainly tends to support the idea that citizenship was seen as a birthright from day one by the framers of the constitution.
    that phrasing does nothing of the kind. the office of president was considered so important that the founders felt it was too risky to trust it to those whose allegiences might be to another nation because they were naturalized.

    limiting the office to 'natural born' citizens was an effort to ensure the loyalty of the officeholder. that says nothing about any ideas related to citizenship for anybody else but the executive office holder.

    in any case, this is not a limit placed upon the congress or judiciary. so the framers obviously were not convicted to the concept of 'birthright' in general, but with the executive in particular. in addition, there is nowhere in here that establishes birth as the sole determination of citizenship for the executive but rather, simply as a minimum one.

    in addition, that says nothing about a 2 fold test for citizenship that was adopted one hundred years later, with a reconstruction amendment to the constitution.

    you are incorrect with this interpretation, but even if you weren't, the 14th amendment would specifically rebut this interpretaton as it amends the orginal document and therefore, original intent in this matter.

    i'll concede the first point you made about article 1 section 9 being primarily about slavery, however, it is still not on point for mulitiple reasons 1. it wasn't the founding fathers intent to address citizenship rules generally with the clause, 2. the limitation ended in 1808, and 3. the 14th amendment would have controlling authority on the concept of what defines a citizen as it amends the constitution for this specific purpose.

    ~faith,
    timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Jan 1, '07
  4. by   Freedom42
    Quote from imenid37
    The undocumented worker who works in a factory or picking fruit, etc. and delivers is an entirely different story than the woman who breezes in 1st class from the Mid-East or S. America to deliver. I don't have a problem w/ the poor person who can't afford care and is here trying to survive. The employers who are benefitting from those folks should foot the bill. I have a huge problem w/ the princess who flies in. I guess you have to deliver her. Why not make the person (parent) financially obligated for the bill or otherwise they can't return to the U.S.? For example, you can't send vaccine records, birth certificate, etc. unless the financial obligations have been met.
    I agree. It was this disparity that first got me interested in this thread. I wondered what burden if any these wealthy women posed to health departments, and therefore taxpayers, as one poster suggested.

    In doing some research, what I've been able to find is that wealthy women from South Korea do frequently fly to Los Angeles to give birth; according to the LA Times and some other publications, they pay cash (upwards of $20,000). Taxpayers do not foot their bills. I was also intrigued to read that these births often take place not at U.S. hospitals but at private birthing centers set up by Korean business interests. These centers are specifically marketed toward Korean women and their cash payments.

    This post is not meant to imply anything about birthright citizenship. I was only interested in the implication that wealthy foreign women take advantage of the U.S. system at the expense of taxpayers.
  5. by   ZASHAGALKA
    At issue in the Constitutional discussion here is what defines a citizen. We are looking at this along the specific issue of anchor babies, to wit: Do we need another Constitutional Amendment to deny citizenship to those born on our soil whose parents have no right to be here. The answer is NO. We already have such an amendment, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. In its plain text, that Amendment specifically states that birthright is not enough; the determination to be a citizen requires another test: the jurisdiction to be here. That Amendment also gives Congress the rights to ENFORCE that two prong test. To date, anchor babies are being given citizenship status because of rulings by HHS and the State Department.

    Neither the Congress nor the Supreme Cabal have ever directly addressed this issue. If the Congress Acts, the issue becomes moot. The Constitution is very clear on this: Congress has controlling authority:

    In plain language, two methods of determining citizenship have been generally used historically: birthright and bloodline. Our Constitution uses a modified form of both of these concepts in determining citizenship. Birthright (modified to include naturalization) and bloodline (expressed as the jurisdictional right to be here: your bloodline belongs on this soil.)

    How clearly is this a two-part test. It's plain language:

    14th Amendment:

    "Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

    That is clearly a two fold test. 1. Born OR naturalized, AND 2. subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

    And who has the authority to enforce this:

    "Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

    This doesn't require a new amendment, we already have one ON POINT. What it requires is Congress to get off its duff and do its duty on this issue. They haven't and there are several politically calculated reasons why, but that's another discussion.

    http://allnurses.com/forums/f112/not...ry-171314.html

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Jan 1, '07
  6. by   ann945n
    This is a big sore spot for me. IMO if you dont pay taxes and are not here legally we should not foot the bill for your birth and if you are not a citizen your child shouldnt be. I know this is not what the law says but this issue alone will drain our health care system. We are not a country of free-bes so GET OUT, you had 9 months to think about what you were gonna do. I know it sounds harsh but laws need to change
  7. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from ann945n
    This is a big sore spot for me. IMO if you dont pay taxes and are not here legally we should not foot the bill for your birth and if you are not a citizen your child shouldnt be. I know this is not what the law says but this issue alone will drain our health care system. We are not a country of free-bes so GET OUT, you had 9 months to think about what you were gonna do. I know it sounds harsh but laws need to change
    The point is that denying citizenships to those born here of illegals IS the law (Constitutional Law). But, until Congress enforces that law, the rulings of government agencies are the uncontested policy of this nation.

    There is a difference between law and regulation. The reason why we have granted citizenship to these children is because of gov't regulation, absent a law that would enforce the Constitution and overturn those regulations.

    In 2005, members of the House proposed the Citizenship Reform Act that would make just these changes to the law. It got lost in the whole Immigration debate. However, this is an issue that is sure to come up again when the Immigration debate takes off again later this year:

    Text: Citizenship Reform Act of 2005
    Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

    Viking is right about one thing: if such a law were passed, it would almost immediately fast-track to the Supreme Cabal. The Court, however, is much more conservative then in the past. It would take 3-4 yrs for such a law to pass and make its way to the Court. In that time, it is highly likely that there will be at least one more change to the makeup of that Court, if not 2. IF President Bush gets to nominate another member, or a Republican President after 2008, then it is highly likely such a bill WOULD pass muster with the Cabal.

    From Feudalism to Consent : Rethinking Birthright Citizenship
    Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Jan 1, '07
  8. by   hope3456
    Here is a 'letter to the editor' that was posted in response to the original article....kinda scary about not having a DR in attendance but the writer brings the point home about the issue of 'payment.'

    Regardless of the constitutionality of whether these babies are 'legal' or not, childbirth is expensive....for whoever has to pay for it.

    Re "Delivering dual benefits," Dec. 23

    The Times' article infuriated me. When my wife was pregnant with our second child, I was laid off and reluctantly went on unemployment. I delivered my daughter myself in the labor room with the help of a student nurse, who later admitted to me it was the first live birth she had attended. The hospital presented me with a bill that included doctor's fees and delivery room fees. I complained about not having a doctor in attendance or the use of the delivery room, and they reduced the bill by $100. We eventually paid the balance.

    The noncitizens in this article all had jobs. Why couldn't they work out a payment schedule like we did? The way it stands now, it looks as if we are still paying the hospital for noncitizens' children even after we paid off our original debt.
  9. by   Freedom42
    Quote from hope3456
    The Times' article infuriated me. When my wife was pregnant with our second child, I was laid off and reluctantly went on unemployment. I delivered my daughter myself in the labor room with the help of a student nurse, who later admitted to me it was the first live birth she had attended. The hospital presented me with a bill that included doctor's fees and delivery room fees. I complained about not having a doctor in attendance or the use of the delivery room, and they reduced the bill by $100. We eventually paid the balance.
    I find this extremely hard to believe. What hospital, or more specifically, what hospital's lawyer, would allow this to happen? I'm surprised the paper would even publish this; either the hospital's name was omitted by an editor or the paper couldn't confirm any of it and went ahead with it anyway. The only reason this letter is significant is because if fuels apocryphal tales.
  10. by   SharonH, RN
    THIS again? Who is in the world did ya'll scapegoat for America's problems before illegal immigrants?

    Oh wait, it was poor Blacks. How could I forget?
  11. by   SharonH, RN
    Quote from Private Peds Nurse
    What can I say other than America does NOT take good enough care of OUR OWN NEEDY LEGAL citizens, but, we provide care for illegal immigrants? My mother is 72 and disabled as my stepfather is also, and they live off less than four hundred dollars a month and only get $65 a month in food stamps. When I buy groceries and take it to my parents, my stepfather teared up the other day and said I don't know what we would do without your help. Where is the justice in that? Yet come on in illegals and we give you free medical care, food stamps and forget our own elderly and poor????? It's a sad time when we give give give to illegals and forget, or better yet for a lack of the proper term.....DENY our own the so needed help that they deserve.....Lord help us all!!!!!

    The problem with this thinking is your assumption that if only we weren't giving so much money to illegal immigrants we would then take that money and give it to needy American citizens. There is no evidence whatsoever that the lack of assistance your parents receive is due to the care that is given to immigrants. NONE.
  12. by   mercyteapot
    Quote from SharonH, RN
    The problem with this thinking is your assumption that if only we weren't giving so much money to illegal immigrants we would then take that money and give it to needy American citizens. There is no evidence whatsoever that the lack of assistance your parents receive is due to the care that is given to immigrants. NONE.
    The other problem with this particular scenario is that the amount quoted is quite a bit below the minimum Social Security payment for a couple of those ages. Unless there is some legal reason these 2 don't qualify for SS, I can't understand this story.
  13. by   cherrymary
    Quote from OB_RN
    How about those from the Arabic speaking countries??? They come, deliver and go home with thier little American citizen, who will be raised in the middle east, and possibly sent back here as an adult with all the priveleges/ rights of any other US Citizen.
    Am I concerned????
    Oh yes!!!
    hmm.... racial profiling, much? charming. hope my family members never have you as a nurse.

close