Colorado - Illegal Immigrants no longer eligble for state health care

gauge14iv, MSN, APRN, NP · Aug 25, 2006

I am just asking people to remember that the parents may be here illegally but that if we cut off public food stamps or WIC to families with children that are born in the US that we are harming children who are our own citizens.
I think the real challenge will end up being how are we going to temper justice with mercy for those families with children? If these families have been leading otherwise law abiding lives paying taxes, being good neighbors, staying out of trouble can't we as a society find a way to help them find a legal status that doesn't harm their children?

But nearly ALL of them have kids!

The better thing would be to find a way to make most of them legal - and to document those with criminal records so they can be shipped back - so that those who are are earnest and working hard to support families wouldn't have to live in fear, shame and squalor; So they could be proud of their contribution to society as a whole, and so they can be protected by wage and labor laws. Making them legal effectively gives them their "rights" but it also gives US something too - tax dollars and people who are proud to be here and who intend to stay and build lives here.

I don't think across the board amnesty is necessarily the answer, but making the immigration system easier and faster to navigate definately needs to happen. I see a win - win on both sides of that coin, not only for immigrants but for us too.

TheCommuter, BSN, RN · Aug 26, 2006

I know this post is going to be slightly off the subject, but here it is. It would be nice if more illegal immigrants settled in sporificely populated states such as Wyoming or North Dakota to alleviate the 'congestion' that has occurred in the border states of California, Texas, Arizona and New Mexico.

ZASHAGALKA, RN · Aug 26, 2006

From a State perspective, Texas is better at dealing with taxes then California.

Texas' main tax is a sales tax. If you spend money here, you are paying the State sales tax.

California's main tax is income, and that DOES allow for under the table salaries to completely defeat the system.

There is nothing inherent about our laws that stipulate that a child born on our soil is a citizen. Since their illegal parents are not subject to our legal status, neither should the 'fruit of a forbidden tree' be.

From the 14th Amendment:

"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's a two-part test. Being born on our soil as a result of the VIOLATION of our jurisdiction does not or SHOULD NOT meet that burden.

This two-part test dealt with slavery issues post Civil War and had a specific connotation that does not apply to the children of illegal aliens. The purpose of this two-part test was that: the mere act of legally sanctioning and/or punishing a former slave served, under Constitutional precept, to establish his citizenship and all the rights thereof.

This provision was designed to enforce gov't recognized citizenship status on all who were born here AND who live under our rule of law. It just isn't on point for someone that is born here by the process of UNDERMINING our rule of law.

Simply put, it's not simply about the nationality of the land in question, but about the jurisdictional right to be there.

Congress needs to weigh in on this issue and disabuse HHS of this misinterpretation by regulation. I've said this for years. For the FIRST TIME, in the immigration debate this summer, I've actually heard this concept discussed as a need for Congressional action.

~faith,

Timothy.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Aug 26, 2006

How can they be law abiding people when they are living here illegally? By definition, they are constantly breaking the law.
Do you know how many pregnant Mexican women have suffered and died in our blazing desert because of the thought of citizenship and all its perks for their unborn child?

I don't like women and children dying in the desert any more than you do. If you read the tenor of my post I was not denying that a violation of the law had occurred. I was pointing out that we as a society may be harming children by our virulent rhetoric and policies. I don't think that the violation is continually recurring in a legal sense. I was trying to express that I believed that Justice should be tempered with mercy in the sense that if these people were otherwise living law-abiding lives that they could be held accountable for their mistakes but that we could also find a way for them to become legal. (Not with special treatment or favors but a way that does not force the division of parents from children.) I don't pretend to know the answers for immigration but I do know that nearly everyone in America comes from an immigrant background and that any one of our own ancestors may have jumped ship as it were to start a new life in America. Because of that simple fact I think we all need to be careful of becoming vengeful or pointing fingers at immigrants.

IMO the real lawbreakers are the corporate titans who I think really facilitate illegal hiring with no real fear of consequences.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Aug 26, 2006

But nearly ALL of them have kids!
The better thing would be to find a way to make most of them legal - and to document those with criminal records so they can be shipped back - so that those who are are earnest and working hard to support families wouldn't have to live in fear, shame and squalor; So they could be proud of their contribution to society as a whole, and so they can be protected by wage and labor laws. Making them legal effectively gives them their "rights" but it also gives US something too - tax dollars and people who are proud to be here and who intend to stay and build lives here.
I don't think across the board amnesty is necessarily the answer, but making the immigration system easier and faster to navigate definately needs to happen. I see a win - win on both sides of that coin, not only for immigrants but for us too.

I agree!

Sheri257 · Aug 26, 2006

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 completely lost my sympathy for those people on that day.

:typing

HM2VikingRN, RN · Aug 26, 2006

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.

gauge14iv, MSN, APRN, NP · Aug 26, 2006

Don't get me wrong - I don't want them here ILLEGALLY.

HM2VikingRN, RN · Aug 26, 2006

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.

Sheri257 · Aug 26, 2006

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

cardiacRN2006, ADN, RN · Aug 26, 2006

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?

Cococure · Aug 26, 2006

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!!