Come to America to Have your Baby!!

[hope3456]

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 'Delivering Dual Benefits')

A couple excerpts from the article:

One of the most controversial aspects of coverage has been prenatal care. In 1989, California passed a law guaranteeing prenatal care to all impoverished women, with the state footing the bill. Last year, it began to tap federal funds dedicated to healthcare for working families, under the theory that the fetus would ultimately be an American child. Some other states have done the same

In Los Angeles County's public and private hospitals, undocumented women accounted for 41,240 Medi-Cal births in 2004, roughly half the deliveries covered by the public program.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

citizenship as defined within the 14th amendment.

amendment xiv

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. no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the united states; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

section 5. the congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

the 14th amendment has established several standards of citizenship. one route is through naturalization and the other is through birthright under the doctrine of jus soli. one of the interesting things about the 14th amendment is that it sets minimum standards of equal protection that the states (and federal government) must meet in relation to the people. it also empowers congress to enforce the legal protections guaranteed by the constitution to all citizens of the us. the birthright citizenship issue has been debated endlessly on another thread with numerous claims being made that congress would be within its powers to remove this constitutional right via statute. congress was empowered by the 14th amendment to enforce but not limit the protections of citizenship on behalf of the people in their relationships with both state and federal governement.

congress does have the power under article 1 section 8 to pass uniform naturalization laws but this power does not extend to jus soli as the 14th amendment specified that citizenship shall be granted to all people born in the us. the other point is that the 14th says born or naturalized not born and naturalized in regards to the tests for citizenship. this does support the idea that congress had the intent when it proposed the amendment for ratification to the states to define american citizenship as a birthright. the states through ratification of the amendment concurred with this constitutional definition of citizenship.

enforcement would include the concepts of birthright and jurisdiction. those are the very issues at play. in elkins, the supreme cabal ruled one way regarding the issue of jurisdiction (indians born on american soil are not citizens because treaties served to deny jurisdiction) and the congress another in the indian citizenship act (they are citizens because congress has the right to determine what constitutes jurisdiction). the indian citizenship act became law because of the 14th amendment's enumerated power to congress to act specifically on the issue, at point being the issue of jurisdiction in addition to birthplace. case law supports my interpretation that congress does indeed have the power to act without constitutional revision. in fact, it has in the past.

your interpretation is not on point. this issue has been hashed in the courts, with the courts giving equal validity to jurisdiction as it does to birthright. there is no precedence to support your interpretation that jurisdiction only applies to naturalization. provide one.

in fact, such a concept runs completely afowl of original intent. the intent of the 14th's dual test for citizenship was to create a catch 22 vis a vi slavery: the very act of claiming jurisdiction over a person (former slave) born on this soil confers citizenship. so, any jurisdiction that claimed a right to sanction a former slave must also submit that the very act of doing so conferred citizenship on that former slave, with all the attendant rights of citizenship. nothing in that concept allows a parsing of the document to limit that concept to naturalized citizens only.

the issue at play with original intent was to more stringently uphold the rights of a citizen. but to do so, the amendment first had to define the concept of citizen. it did so by two standards: birthright and jurisdiction. the two concepts go hand in hand. it is simply inaccurate to contend that the constitution either intended to create birthright alone as an uncontested standard, or that the actual language does so unintentionally.

you are ignoring original intent, prior congressional action (indian citizenship act) and case law (ark, elkins, plyler) in your intepretation. all i ask is that you provide a shred of evidence to the contrary. there is none. your interpretation of a parsing of the 14th amendment simply doesn't survive scrutiny.

~faith,

timothy.

[hope3456, ASN, RN]

I became interested in this topic while working in a very bad job situation (a LTC). I was about to quit, but found out I was pregnant (surprise, surprise). I hung in there, dealing with an incredible amt of job induced stress b/c I was terrified that if I lost my job I would also be losing my health insurance which I was dependant on for prenatal care and the L&D. My MD even told me to cut back on my hours but I did not - long story short - my boss didn't like me and I didn't want to give her a reason to fire me.

Not until I started researching this issue (when I went on maternity leave) did I realize that the gov't paid for such a large percentage of childbirths - roughly 1/3 are paid for by medicaid, but many states also have other programs (child health plans) which also cover prenatal care.

I have mixed feelings. If the govt is going to pay for such a large percentage of childbirths, a very strong argument could be made that prenatal care and medical care for L&D should be an 'entitlement' - like public education. Not that I totally agree with this - but it seems something has gone very wrong with the system.

If I had quit this job and subsequently lost my health insurance, I dont know how I would have accessed prenatal care. My worry would be that I made 'too much' money (already, that year) to qualify for any assistance.....but my medical costs were the upwards of $12,000 - i dont have that kind of money.

Maybe I am wrong - maybe someone else out there knows more about the income requirements for qualifying for medicaid or other financial assistance programs, would be very interested to know more about what they are.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

from findlaw at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=387&invol=253 :

afroyim v. rusk, 387 u.s. 253 (1967)

387 u.s. 253

held: congress has no power under the constitution to divest a person of his united states citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. perez v. brownell, supra, overruled. pp. 256-268.

(a) congress has no express power under the constitution to strip a person of citizenship, and no such power can be sustained as an implied attribute of sovereignty, as was recognized by congress before the passage of the fourteenth amendment; and a mature and well-considered dictum in osborn v. bank of the united states, 9 wheat. 738, 827, is to the same effect. pp. 257-261.

(b) the fourteenth amendment's provision that "all persons born or naturalized in the united states . . . are citizens of the united states . . ." completely controls the status of citizenship and prevents the cancellation of petitioner's citizenship. pp. 262-268.

the bill was finally defeated. 14 it is in this setting that six years later, in osborn v. bank of the united states, 9 wheat. 738, 827, this court, speaking through chief justice marshall, declared in what appears to be a mature and well-considered dictum that congress, once a person becomes a citizen, cannot deprive him of that status:

"[the naturalized citizen] becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. the constitution does not authorize congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. the simple power of the national legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual."

any doubt [color=#005500][387 u.s. 253, 262] as to whether prior to the passage of the fourteenth amendment congress had the power to deprive a person against his will of citizenship once obtained should have been removed by the unequivocal terms of the amendment itself. it provides its own constitutional rule in language calculated completely to control the status of citizenship: "all persons born or naturalized in the united states . . . are citizens of the united states . . . ." there is no indication in these words of a fleeting citizenship, good at the moment it is acquired but subject to destruction by the government at any time. rather the amendment can most reasonably be read as defining a citizenship which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily relinquishes it. once acquired, this fourteenth amendment citizenship was not to be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will of the federal government, the states, or any other governmental unit.

further on within afoyim the court gives a brief history of the intent of the 14th amendment’s sponsors in regard to establishing the individuals right to citizenship. (the senate functionally represents the interests of the states and their governments in regards to federal legislation.)

but the civil rights act of 1866, 14 stat. 27, had already attempted to confer citizenship on all persons born or naturalized in the united states. nevertheless, when the fourteenth amendment passed the house without containing any definition of citizenship, the sponsors of the amendment in the senate insisted on inserting a constitutional definition and grant of citizenship….it was to provide an insuperable obstacle against every governmental effort to strip negroes of their newly acquired citizenship that the first clause was added to the fourteenth amendment. 16 [color=#005500][387 [color=#005500]u.s.[color=#005500] 253, 263] senator howard, who sponsored the amendment in the senate, thus explained the purpose of the clause:

"it settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the united states. . . . we desired to put this question of citizenship and the rights of citizens . . . under the civil rights bill beyond the legislative power . . . ." cong. globe, 39th cong., 1st sess., 2890, 2896 (1866).

afoyim also reviewed us vs wong kim ark:

the court then held 22 that congress could not do anything to abridge or affect his citizenship conferred by the fourteenth amendment. quoting chief justice marshall's well-considered and oft-repeated dictum in osborn to the effect that congress under the power of naturalization has "a power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away," the court said:

"congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts of congress, a fortiori no act . . . of congress . . . [color=#005500][387 u.s. 253, 267] can affect citizenship acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the constitution itself . . . . the fourteenth amendment, while it leaves the power, where it was before, in congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship." id., at 703.

the court in summary states:

our holding we think is the only one that can stand in view of the language and the purpose of the fourteenth amendment, and our construction of that amendment, we believe, comports more nearly than perez with the principles of liberty and equal justice to all that the entire fourteenth amendment was adopted to guarantee. citizenship is no light trifle [387 u.s. 253, 268] to be jeopardized any moment congress decides to do so under the name of one of its general or implied grants of power. in some instances, loss of citizenship can mean that a man is left without the protection of citizenship in any country in the world - as a man without a country. citizenship in this nation is a part of a co-operative affair. its citizenry is the country and the country is its citizenry. the very nature of our free government makes it completely incongruous to have a rule of law under which a group of citizens temporarily in office can deprive another group of citizens of their citizenship. we hold that the fourteenth amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.

what the court is ultimately saying within this decision is that citizenship from birth is a right of the people of the united states that is beyond the reach of congress to regulate as a result of the fourteenth amendment.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

AFROYIM v. RUSK, 387 U.S. 253 (1967)

Afroyim isn't at point at all to the concept of birthright citizenship as it involved a naturalized citizen. All Afroyim determines is the concept that generally, once a person becomes a citizen, that cannot be revoked without consent.

That says NOTHING about determining who is a citizen IN THE FIRST PLACE. THAT is a power delegated in the Constitution to Congress along the framework of birthright PLUS jurisdiction, the two part test.

And it says NOTHING about denying citizenship obtained by fraud. It can be argued that the attempt to create an 'anchor baby' is an attempt to defraud the citizens of the United States, thereby creating the legal mechanism to deny citizenship to those that have already been granted it through these fraudulent means. This would be a separate test, and could not fall under Afroyim as fraud was not addressed in Afroyim. However, I have conceded in our Colorado Illegal thread that it is a practical impossibility to deny previously granted citizenship. Determining fraudulent intent after the fact would be a high burden on the part of the gov't.

That says NOTHING about denying citizenship in the first place. Legislation to define jurisdiction would likely affect only FUTURE determination of citizenship. THAT is well within the power of Congress. As I mentioned before, in Plyler, the Supreme Cabal practically begged the Congress to address this issue.

Another important item of note regarding Afroyim: it was a 5-4 decision in 1967 that reversed a prior decision by the Court that had ruled exactly the other way: that Congress had the right to revoke citizenship. That was the 1958 Perez v. Brownell decision. IF Congress acted on this issue today, not only would Afroyim not be on point, to the extent that it were, there is no assurance that Afroyim could stand a real test of stare decisis, having ITSELF been the mechanism to deny stare decisis in the Perez decision. In other words, although the Cabal generally looks to securing its own previous decisions in future cases, in THIS case, the Cabal could choose to either support its previous decisions in Afroyim, or alternatively, Perez.

Interestingly, while Afroyim reversed Perez generally, it could be argued that it supported Perez specifically. Perez had indicated to Immigration upon his first re-entry to the U.S. (during WWII) that he was a Mexican national and that could be viewed under the lens of Afroyim as a consenual self-revocation of his U.S. citizenship, especially in light of the fact that he denounced his U.S. citizenship upon entry to the U.S. for the purposes of avoiding WWII Selective Service laws.

~faith,

Timothy.

[LydiaNN]

Afroyim isn't at point at all to the concept of birthright citizenship as it involved a naturalized citizen. All Afroyim determines is the concept that generally, once a person becomes a citizen, that cannot be revoked without consent.

That says NOTHING about determining who is a citizen IN THE FIRST PLACE. THAT is a power delegated in the Constitution to Congress along the framework of birthright PLUS jurisdiction, the two part test.

And it says NOTHING about denying citizenship obtained by fraud. It can be argued that the attempt to create an 'anchor baby' is an attempt to defraud the citizens of the United States, thereby creating the legal mechanism to deny citizenship to those that have already been granted it through these fraudulent means. This would be a separate test, and could not fall under Afroyim as fraud was not addressed in Afroyim. However, I have conceded in our Colorado Illegal thread that it is a practical impossibility to deny previously granted citizenship. Determining fraudulent intent after the fact would be a high burden on the part of the gov't.

That says NOTHING about denying citizenship in the first place. Legislation to define jurisdiction would likely affect only FUTURE determination of citizenship. THAT is well within the power of Congress. As I mentioned before, in Plyler, the Supreme Cabal practically begged the Congress to address this issue.

Another important item of note regarding Afroyim: it was a 5-4 decision in 1967 that reversed a prior decision by the Court that had ruled exactly the other way: that Congress had the right to revoke citizenship. That was the 1958 Perez v. Brownell decision. IF Congress acted on this issue today, not only would Afroyim not be on point, to the extent that it were, there is no assurance that Afroyim could stand a real test of stare decisis, having ITSELF been the mechanism to deny stare decisis in the Perez decision. In other words, although the Cabal generally looks to securing its own previous decisions in future cases, in THIS case, the Cabal could choose to either support its previous decisions in Afroyim, or alternatively, Perez.

Interestingly, while Afroyim reversed Perez generally, it could be argued that it supported Perez specifically. Perez had indicated to Immigration upon his first re-entry to the U.S. (during WWII) that he was a Mexican national and that could be viewed under the lens of Afroyim as a consenual self-revocation of his U.S. citizenship, especially in light of the fact that he denounced his U.S. citizenship upon entry to the U.S. for the purposes of avoiding WWII Selective Service laws.

~faith,

Timothy.

Didn't this particular discussion start as a result of a suggestion a poster made about rescinding any citizenship that had been granted during the previous decade, though? The thread has taken so many twists and turns that maybe I missed the start of this, but my understanding was that HM2Viking was responding specifically to the idea that we start rescinding citizenship, which besides being unconstitutional, is such a horrible idea on so many levels it is hard to know where to start.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Didn't this particular discussion start as a result of a suggestion a poster made about rescinding any citizenship that had been granted during the previous decade, though? The thread has taken so many twists and turns that maybe I missed the start of this, but my understanding was that HM2Viking was responding specifically to the idea that we start rescinding citizenship, which besides being unconstitutional, is such a horrible idea on so many levels it is hard to know where to start.

No, I believe it started with the concept of prenatal care and anchor babies. I believe the OP was looking at the concept through her own lens of prenatal care.

But, somebody DID mention early on the concept of revoking citizenship to anchor babies and I DID discuss that in the quote you posted: it might be technically possible because such citizenship could be viewed to be obtained through fraud, but it is a practical impossibility. Future legislation would probably be limited to future status of those not yet born.

The status of anchor babies generally is directly on point to the title of the thread.

But technically, if we did go back and re-evalaute citizenship, it would not be RECINDING citizenship, but a proper evaluation of the Constitutional two-fold test to determine citizenship in the first place. It wouldn't be an issue of 'you are no longer a citizen', rather one of 'you were never a citizen in the first place'.

In any case, no amount of closing the border will suffice so long as there can be a real and defined benefit derived from violating our immigration laws. The most comprehensive step to eliminating illegal immigration is to eliminate the benefits derived from that illegal alien status. And regardless what anybody says, the concept of protecting our domestic security is an absolute Constitutional concept. Viking even directly quotes the Constitutional concept of immigration being limited to those the states shall think 'proper to admit'. Anchor babies do not survive that Constitutional threshold.

The legal concept at issue is 'fruit of the forbidden tree'. In our legal system, it is generally not permissible to derive benefit from an illegal act. THAT is a founding principle of English Common Law, upon which the Constitution is based.

~faith,

Timothy.

[LydiaNN]

Hmmm... I went back and re-read HM2Viking's posts and discovered that yes, this particular part of the discussion began when a poster, not the OP, suggested rescinding citizenship. HM2Viking's posts are directly on topic, while the rebuttals are not. We do not grant citizenship and then yank it away in this country.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, in 2002, there were approx 383,000 babies born to parents that violated immigration laws to have their children in the United States. This accounts for 1 in 10 births in the U.S.

Center for Immigration Studies

In any case, a 'temporary worker program' would likely aggravate any potential solution to the problem as granting a legal status to temporary immigrants would serve codify the citizenship status of the babies of those temporary workers that give birth. In THAT case, the Supreme Cabal case of Kim Wong Ark WOULD apply and grant said citizenship based on both prongs of the 2-fold test: birthright and jurisdiction to be here.

~faith,

Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Hmmm... I went back and re-read HM2Viking's posts and discovered that yes, this particular part of the discussion began when a poster, not the OP, suggested rescinding citizenship. HM2Viking's posts are directly on topic, while the rebuttals are not. We do not grant citizenship and then yank it away in this country.

I respectfully disagree that I'm off topic discussing the status of anchor babies in a thread about 'coming to America to have your baby!!'

I also disagree that I'm somehow not discussing the status of revoking citizenship; I have discussed that in detail. I agree with Viking in the main on that point, but the other issues regarding anchor babies are at issue with the rationale for WHY, as my rationale is different then Viking.

Viking argues that revoking citizenship is not possible because jus soli, birthright, absolutely confers that citizenship. I argue that while it might not be technically possible to revoke said citizenship, jus soli is not at sole issue to that determination because the Constitution has a 2 fold test, jus soli being only 1 prong of that test. So, I AM directly rebutting Viking's assertions, or at least, the rationale behind them.

I think a case COULD be made for not revoking, but a retro-active determination denying citizenship status to anchor babies. However, I do agree that possibility is unlikely at best, unpalatable at worst. But a case COULD be made that we never granted such citizenship in the first place. The Constitution doesn't grant such citizenship based on Jus Soli alone and neither the Congress nor the Supreme Cabal have ever directly addressed this issue.

To date, the determination of citizenship status of babies born to illegals has only been made indirectly by the Executive in gov't policy created by Cabinet level gov't agencies. One thing for sure: the Constitution does NOT grant the Executive as the arbiter of this decision. Once the Congress rules on this issue (it hasn't to date), it would have controlling authority, subject to review by the Supreme Cabal. The Executive's only Constitutionally granted role is the ability to veto the Congress, not the ability to create law absent Congressional input. That default extra-Constitutional creation of law, or at least, policy by the Executive is why these children are considered 'citizens'.

~faith,

Timothy.

[Euskadi1946]

Oh God, here we go again!!!!!

[CJ777]

It's only about 13 miles from the TJ border to my hosptal. They sure don't have to fly to get here!!!

It just seems like the norm to me. I decided a long time ago that it was not MY job to worry about it. If TPTB want to deal w/it, great, if not, oh well, job security!

HELLO, i JUST WANTED TO SAY i LIKE YOUR RESPONSE. AS NURSES WE REALLY CANNOT BE JUDGEMENTAL. IF WE DO, IF AFFECTS OUR WORK PERFORMANCE. THE PATIENT THEN WILL SUFFER. IT ISN'T WORTH IT TO ME EITHER. I DON'T WORK IN LABOR AND DELIVERY. BUT I AM SURE THERE ARE TIMES THE SITUATION GETS ON A PERSON'S NERVES. ESPECAILLY WHEN YOU ARE THE TAX PAYER PAYING FOR IT. BUT THAT IS WHEN YOU HAVE TO SAY AS YOU DID ABOVE. GOOD ATTITUDE!! HAVE A HAPPY NEW YEAR.

[fiestynurse]

I have to say that Zashagalka makes some very good arguments and I agree with most of what he is saying. Thank-you - I learned a lot from your posts.