Come to America to Have your Baby!! - page 6

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   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from HM2Viking
    At least we agree that the 14th Amendment changed the rules over Congress ability to regulate the Naturalization process. I think that the real difference between us is in the conceptualization and derivation of citizenship. From my point of view Naturalization is the process of choosing to become a citizen while people who are born in the US acquire citizenship by natural right. Afroyim places citizenship as the property of the individual and not of the state. A reasonable argument can be made (see Findlaw) that each time Congress has addressed Naturalization in statute that the inclusion of the "persons born" language is simply a reaffirmation of the accepted meaning of constitutional language.

    I know that you are not a huge fan of the Supreme Court but please remember that the courts are the last line of defense to protect our individual rights and liberties. In the casae of the native born that decision of whether to retain or renounce citizenship has been guaranteed to the individual and the courts have in essence ruled that by definition anyone born in the US is subject to protection/jurisdiction of the law. Ultimately, our constitution was meant to establish protections for the minority from oppression by the majority through either legislative or executive action.
    I don't think it's completely true to say that citizenship is the exclusive property of the individual and 'not the State'. See, the 'State' is the people. 'We the People'.

    If you look at our founding documents, the whole expressed point of our revolution is that we are making a pact with each other. But that is a two way pact: the individual is making a pact with the group, and the group is making a pact with the individual.

    When you deny the flow of rights one way, you deny it altogether. It just doesn't follow that the individual has the right to determine placement into the group but the group DOESN'T have the right to make the same determination. In order to secure our rights, we have to first determine who we are. That is OUR right, not the 'natural right' of anybody to usurp by illegal means.

    The 14th Amendment was meant to Constitutionalize the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which stated, "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States." In expressing the concept in the Constitution, they left out the concept of Indians because they thought the jurisdiction clause was self-explanatory and on point. They changed the negative contruction 'not subject to foreign powers' to a positive constuct: subject to OUR powers. The intent wasn't to change the content of the Civil Rights Act, but to ensure that it's flow of language was clear, crisp, and concise: that is something sought after in MOST Constitutional language.

    If you want to look at original intent in the 14th, look at it's drafters:
    From Feudalism to Consent : Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

    "When pressed about whether Indians living on reservations would be covered by the clause since they were “most clearly subject to our jurisdiction, both civil and military,” for example, Senator Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the drafting and adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, responded that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States meant subject to its “complete” jurisdiction, “[n]ot owing allegiance to anybody else.” And Senator Jacob Howard, who introduced the language of the jurisdiction clause on the floor of the Senate, contended that it should be construed to mean “a full and complete jurisdiction,” “the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now” (i.e., under the 1866 Act). That meant that the children of Indians who still “belong[ed] to a tribal relation” and hence owed allegiance to another sovereign (however dependent the sovereign was) would not qualify for citizenship under the clause. Because of this interpretative gloss, provided by the authors of the provision, an amendment offered by Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin explicitly to exclude “Indians not taxed,” as the 1866 Act had done, was rejected as redundant."

    The problem with dismissing the import of 'subject to our jurisdiction' is that to do so, to say that birthplace alone was intended to confer citizenship, is that you make the concept of 'jurisdiction' to be redundant. "It is a well-established doctrine of legal interpretation that legal texts, including the Constitution, are not to be interpreted to create redundancy unless any other interpretation would lead to absurd results."

    In the first case before the Court to test this concept, The 'Slaughter-house Cases' a mere five years after the Amendment was passed AND within contemporary understanding of the import of the 14th, the Court ruled: "the phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States."

    Even the dissenting opinion in those combined cases acknowledged that the clause was "designed to remove any doubts about the constitutionality of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that all persons born in the United States were as a result citizens both of the United States and of the state in which they resided, provided they were not at the time subjects of any foreign power."

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Jan 3, '07
  2. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from SharonH, RN
    You are so right Ceci. And don't you believe that jazz that a lot of people claim that they don't have a problem with immigrants, it's because they are illegal that they are upset. No, they have a problem with people with a different culture and language than their own coming to this country in large numbers and daring to maintain their cultural identies. That's threatening to a lot of people.
    Why shouldn't that BE threatening? There is nothing wrong with retaining your native culture, only if the intent to do so is by first repudiating OUR culture, OUR laws

    When you look at our previous waves of immigration, within the first home-grown generation, you see the children of immigrants trying hand over fist to adopt OUR national values, to BE Americans, in every full measure of that context.

    WE are successful BECAUSE we are a melting pot. Our diversity makes us strong not because it serves to divide but because, in additive qualities, it enhances the overall culture and context of our nation. In being different, we ENHANCE our similarities.

    Our national pact is a pact with each other, to each other. Those that opt out ARE dangerous in sufficient numbers. Ask Great Britain about the inherent dangers of incorporating a large minority of citizens that don't wish to assimilate into the culture. Shoot, look at our OWN homegrown terrorists of recent import: militia groups that divorced themselves from our national concept.

    It is not some great moral crime for America to wish that our nation be composed primarily of those that support the bonds between us that make us great.

    It is not some great moral crime to be outraged by the system that allows the dishonest manipulation of our national pact.

    Many illegals come here from the South in order to embrace our dreams. Indeed, many of their children try just as hard to BE Americans. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Creating an 'anchor baby' is not on point to fulfilling the American dream; it's taking advantage of us in order to receive benefits.

    We are a nation that has embraced immigration, a so-called 'Nation of Immigrants'. But, we should do so in an orderly process. I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion that America is inherently afraid of immigrants, but we have also been overwhelmingly tolerant of immigration.

    When immigration runs unchecked, however, what you get is unbalanced immigration. What WE are getting as a result of illegal immigration is a wave of uneducated immigrants ill-equipped to function in an increasingly technological society. And so, the results is that such immigration becomes a drain on our resources. Not only that, they overcompete for entry level positions meaning that our 'lower class' is being squeezed by an under-class. Remember in the coming days that the debate about minimum wage is created by the need to ensure a wage completely debased by under the table payments to illegal aliens. There IS no job that Americans won't do; there are simply jobs that Americans won't do for 3 bucks an hour.

    We have created a form of economic slavery. THEY are not like us and so, do not deserve the basic employment and salary protections enshrined in our laws as basic human rights. THE only way to ensure such protections is to have some control over the process: to limit immigration to levels that allow for quick assimilation. That isn't anti-immigration; it's pro-immigration that allows for those immigrants to be successful not just by their home standards, but by OUR standards, as well.

    You are claiming that our distrust of unfettered immigration is tantamount to racism. How tolerant is it for us to allow 20% plus unemployment in inner city African American communities when next door is a line of illegals just waiting to be picked up for day labor that completely undermines the ability of those inner city communities to effectively compete for the jobs that exist? How will raising the minimum wage affect a balance when the inbalance that exists is based on undermining that wage, in the first place?

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Jan 3, '07
  3. by   pickledpepperRN
    Labor laws should be enforced.
  4. by   ZASHAGALKA
    Quote from spacenurse
    Labor laws should be enforced.
    EVERYTHING that encourages illegal immigration should be addressed. If you build it, they will come.

    So, don't build it, or allow it to be built by default.

    But to address your point directly, if WE consider our labor and salary laws to be basic human rights, then their violations should be tantamount to violations of human rights - considered an international high felony.

    Such violations should be treated as such. If any potential employer, from big business down to the under the table employers of nannies and day laborers understood that violating our basic labor laws is a human rights violation punishable by 20 yrs in prison, you'd see much more respect for those laws.

    As it is, enforcement is spotty at best and tantamount to measly fines attributed to the 'cost of doing business'. You don't necessarily have to address the 'legal status' of such employees, rather, the 'legal obligations' inherent to hiring ANYBODY.

    The only way that minimum wage could possibly be conceived to be a fair wage for anybody is if it is a minimum wage for EVERYBODY. Otherwise, the concept is completely undermined and serves to limit the legitimate job opportunities for those that employers could rightly fear would have legal recourse available if such basic human rights are routinely violated.

    Since illegals have no 'jurisdiction' to be here, they likewise have no jurisdiction from which to seek legal recourse for the routine violation of their human rights. The fact that they 'want their rights thusly violated' is of no consequence to the ultimate immorality of it.

    The immorality at play here is not vested in those that come. It is vested right here, with US, for allowing them to come, but only under terms that define them as less then we define OURSELVES as human.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Jan 3, '07
  5. by   pickledpepperRN
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    EVERYTHING that encourages illegal immigration should be addressed. If you build it, they will come.

    So, don't build it, or allow it to be built by default.

    But to address your point directly, if WE consider our labor and salary laws to be basic human rights, then their violations should be tantamount to violations of human rights - considered an international high felony.

    Such violations should be treated as such. If any potential employer, from big business down to the under the table employers of nannies and day laborers understood that violating our basic labor laws is a human rights violation punishable by 20 yrs in prison, you'd see much more respect for those laws.

    As it is, enforcement is spotty at best and tantamount to measly fines attributed to the 'cost of doing business'. You don't necessarily have to address the 'legal status' of such employees, rather, the 'legal obligations' inherent to hiring ANYBODY.

    The only way that minimum wage could possibly be conceived to be a fair wage for anybody is if it is a minimum wage for EVERYBODY. Otherwise, the concept is completely undermined and serves to limit the legitimate job opportunities for those that employers could rightly fear would have legal recourse available if such basic human rights are routinely violated.

    Since illegals have no 'jurisdiction' to be here, they likewise have no jurisdiction from which to seek legal recourse for the routine violation of their human rights. The fact that they 'want their rights thusly violated' is of no consequence to the ultimate immorality of it.

    The immorality at play here is not vested in those that come. It is vested right here, with US, for allowing them to come, but only under terms that define them as less then we define OURSELVES as human.

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Thank you!
    I think you are saying that if minimum wage and other laws were enforced for everyong there would be less incentive to hire illegal workers.
    That was my point.
  6. by   lindarn
    Quote from spacenurse
    Thank you!
    I think you are saying that if minimum wage and other laws were enforced for everyong there would be less incentive to hire illegal workers.
    That was my point.
    I just read on the CNN Breaking News website, that Bush is in the process of making arrangements with the Mexican governmeny to begin paying Social Security Payments to illegal immigrants, who have worked here illegally for years. Go figure.

    If you pay them, they will come!

    Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN
    Spokane, Washington
  7. by   mercyteapot
    Quote from OB_RN
    The thread being titled "come to America... caught my eye.
    It is not my intent to be accused of racial profiling-
    I am suggesting, (under the thread title -again-) that there are many reasons why someone from another country would wish to fly in nd give birth.

    BTW- the bill is almost ALWAYS footed by- you guessed it- medicaid.

    Get angry if you like.
    Racial profiling and the medicaid issue aside, what we have here is a real terrorist threat. Those people are patient.They will wait for these kids to grow up. Their children will be able to come and go as they please, do as they please, etc all under the govt's nose because they are CITIZENS.
    Is anyone else concerned????

    Or are you more concerned that I profile my patients?
    PS/ No matter what, I am always a very gracious hostess to my patients, white, black, arabic or other.
    It saddens me to think that you are witness to these children's births, if you honestly believe (and I believe you do) that they will grow up to be terrorists. You say you're a gracious hostess to your patients, but I can't imagine how that can be given this attitude. How can you talk about putting racial profiling aside when you tell us, in the very same sentence no less, that this a terrorism threat?
    Last edit by mercyteapot on Jan 4, '07
  8. by   ZASHAGALKA
    I think the open border IS a potential terrorist threat, but that is a consequence of us allowing our borders to be a sieve, NOT because of the masses that come here seeking defacto refugee status.

    A woman 9 month's pregnant sneaking across the AZ desert ISN'T trying to create a terrorist. She's trying to make a better life for herself and her child. THIS I can understand.

    I can even sympathize.

    But that doesn't justify her 'cutting in line' of the THOUSANDS that fairly engage the legal process. AND, it doesn't justify the immoral economic slavery that results. The ONLY reason that woman is able to sneak across that border is because of an immoral system that we've created.

    Make no mistake: WE created this underclass for our own political purposes. For liberals, it is in line with socialist ideas that say NOBODY, not even America, deserves to be rich, and such wealth should be undermined, or at least redistributed, at every chance. For conservatives, it's about the cost of labor, and THAT price should be undermined at every chance.

    You have to wonder, don't you, how BOTH lines of thought can be accomplished by the same goal?

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Last edit by ZASHAGALKA on Jan 3, '07
  9. by   HM2VikingRN
    findlaw:
    after noting that the due process clause, by reason of its operation upon “all the powers of government, legislative as well as executive and judicial,” could not be appraised solely in terms of the “sanction of settled usage,” justice mathews, speaking for the court in hurtado v. california,40 declared that “[a]rbitrary power, enforcing its edicts to the injury of the persons and property of its subjects, is not law, whether manifested as the decree of a personal monarch or of an impersonal multitude. and the limitations imposed by our constitutional law upon the action of the governments, both state and national, are essential to the preservation of public and private rights, notwithstanding the representative character of our political institutions. the enforcement of these limitations by judicial process is the device of self–governing communities to protect the rights of individuals and minorities, as well against the power of numbers, as against the violence of public agents transcending the limits of lawful authority, even when acting in the name and wielding the force of the government.”

    see also:

    amendment ix



    the enumeration in the constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
  10. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from mercyteapot
    It saddens me to think that you are witness to these children's births, if you honestly believe (and I believe you do) that they will grow up to be terrorists. You say you're a gracious hostess to your patients, but I can't imagine how that can be given this attitude. How can you talk about putting racial profiling when you tell us, in the very same sentence no less, that this a terrorism threat?
    Very well stated!
  11. by   HM2VikingRN
    Quote from lindarn
    I just read on the CNN Breaking News website, that Bush is in the process of making arrangements with the Mexican governmeny to begin paying Social Security Payments to illegal immigrants, who have worked here illegally for years. Go figure.

    If you pay them, they will come!

    Lindarn, RN, BSN, CCRN
    Spokane, Washington
    3 points:
    1. SS is not welfare.
    2. If an immigrant worked here and paid SS taxes along with the contributions of their employer they have paid into the system. (Also to qualify for SS they would have to meet the number of quarters required to qualify.)
    3. I have a feeling that if you really examine the reasons for working illegally it has much more to do with poverty and oppression in their country of origin than it does with access to public assistance.
  12. by   swatch007
    Quote from adrienurse
    Why is people coming in from other countries a bad thing? In case you haven't noticed birth rates in North America are down and the senior population will have a hard time being supported by working age people in the next 30-40-50 years.

    I'd like to meet those of you who are american and whose ancestors DIDN'T come from another country.
    If you think a little bit more, you will realize that the real issue is not so much about birth right or what country they came from; the issue here is more on like everybody here contributed to accumulate one jar of cookies then another person from out of this country suddenly appears and dips her/his hand in our cookie jar to reach for a big one.

    Just by using simple common sense, everybody here knows that coming to this country to get the benefits that the tax payers work hard for is plain and simple not fair for the most of us.

    But then again, if one complains about these "freeloaders", he/she will be accused of racism and be critized for commenting. Being politically correct does not help to solve this social problem. It is time to be pragmatic;let slap their hands and tell these freeloaders to stop grabbing our cookies.

    You can't see the reality around you clearer if you keep denying what happening around you.
  13. by   buddiage
    Quote from ZASHAGALKA
    Why shouldn't that BE threatening? There is nothing wrong with retaining your native culture, only if the intent to do so is by first repudiating OUR culture, OUR laws

    When you look at our previous waves of immigration, within the first home-grown generation, you see the children of immigrants trying hand over fist to adopt OUR national values, to BE Americans, in every full measure of that context.

    WE are successful BECAUSE we are a melting pot. Our diversity makes us strong not because it serves to divide but because, in additive qualities, it enhances the overall culture and context of our nation. In being different, we ENHANCE our similarities.

    Our national pact is a pact with each other, to each other. Those that opt out ARE dangerous in sufficient numbers. Ask Great Britain about the inherent dangers of incorporating a large minority of citizens that don't wish to assimilate into the culture. Shoot, look at our OWN homegrown terrorists of recent import: militia groups that divorced themselves from our national concept.

    It is not some great moral crime for America to wish that our nation be composed primarily of those that support the bonds between us that make us great.

    It is not some great moral crime to be outraged by the system that allows the dishonest manipulation of our national pact.

    Many illegals come here from the South in order to embrace our dreams. Indeed, many of their children try just as hard to BE Americans. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. Creating an 'anchor baby' is not on point to fulfilling the American dream; it's taking advantage of us in order to receive benefits.

    We are a nation that has embraced immigration, a so-called 'Nation of Immigrants'. But, we should do so in an orderly process. I don't necessarily disagree with your assertion that America is inherently afraid of immigrants, but we have also been overwhelmingly tolerant of immigration.

    When immigration runs unchecked, however, what you get is unbalanced immigration. What WE are getting as a result of illegal immigration is a wave of uneducated immigrants ill-equipped to function in an increasingly technological society. And so, the results is that such immigration becomes a drain on our resources. Not only that, they overcompete for entry level positions meaning that our 'lower class' is being squeezed by an under-class. Remember in the coming days that the debate about minimum wage is created by the need to ensure a wage completely debased by under the table payments to illegal aliens. There IS no job that Americans won't do; there are simply jobs that Americans won't do for 3 bucks an hour.

    We have created a form of economic slavery. THEY are not like us and so, do not deserve the basic employment and salary protections enshrined in our laws as basic human rights. THE only way to ensure such protections is to have some control over the process: to limit immigration to levels that allow for quick assimilation. That isn't anti-immigration; it's pro-immigration that allows for those immigrants to be successful not just by their home standards, but by OUR standards, as well.

    You are claiming that our distrust of unfettered immigration is tantamount to racism. How tolerant is it for us to allow 20% plus unemployment in inner city African American communities when next door is a line of illegals just waiting to be picked up for day labor that completely undermines the ability of those inner city communities to effectively compete for the jobs that exist? How will raising the minimum wage affect a balance when the inbalance that exists is based on undermining that wage, in the first place?

    ~faith,
    Timothy.
    Yes, yes, yes!

    I don't think everyone is afraid of different cultures. In fact, we have international flights to prove that we like to see other people and cultures.

    Someone had said,
    "No, they have a problem with people with a different culture and language than their own coming to this country in large numbers and daring to maintain their cultural identies."

    Nobody cares (in general) what you do in your culture. Some might even be interested to learn about it (I have been fascinated by the middle east before this war, and have books that I have purchased <still do buy too> on the subject for my own pleasure). If you were intelligent enough to find the means to come to this country, then you are also intelligent enough to realize that you are making a conscious "trade" of leaving your country to be a member of ours.

    Let's take an example in nature.

    An animal with different habits or behaviors waltzes into a new group of whatever species it belongs to.
    What will happen if that new animal doesn't change its different behavior and habits to fit the group that it is in?
    The animal will probably not reap the benefits of being in that group, could be killed, will possibly not mate, will be picked on mercilessly, etc.
    Even animals have different temperaments and personalities can coexist, but it would be dumb to think that a strange animal could just come into that group and be "accomidated," or even more dumb- get special treatment when it's time to eat or hunt. If a group were to do those things, it could cause hardship for everyone, and probably endanger their lives.

    Now I realize we are not animals (but not totally unlike them) but we do have a social structure for our "American group."

    There are immigrants who come here and work hard to get upper levels of education, and I totally applaud them for it and am glad they did it. I truly admire them for it.

    We don't need our country to be like the ones that people are trying to get out of.

    Timothy, I completely agree with your feelings on our contributions to the problem.

close