Am I reading this right? The bill is SB 1159, which looks like it passed to me when I look it up on the California legislature website -- with the following language:
Specializes in Complex pedi to LTC/SA & now a manager.
Children born in the U.S. are entitled to a public US education regardless if their parents are here legally. Some cross the border with birth eminent so that the child is born on US soil and therefore considered a citizen by birth. Do I think that's right? Does it really matter what I think?
@ elkpark: But illegal immigrants are US taxpayers. Non citizens, whether legal or not, pay taxes just like we do. Our free schools aren't actually free. They're supported by local property taxes, along with state and federal support derived from sales and income taxes.
Last time I looked, taking money for a service without actually delivering that service is fraud. An interesting position from people who seem to care about the rule of law. When you deport the "illegals", are you prepared to return the taxes they paid while here.
Again, I agree that immigration policy needs to be reformed and effectively enforced. But the argument that illegal immigrants are leeching off the U.S. taxpayer is just plain false.
I think that if we want rational immigration reform, then we need to base our thinking in reality, not propaganda - regardless of how emotionally gratifying that propaganda might be.
@JustBeachyNurse: you are describing "anchor babies". The children of every single non-native immigrant to this country have been anchor babies. (Excepting, of course the children of slaves, who had no choice at all about living here or having babies.) Why is that suddenly a bad thing now?
@JustBeachyNurse: you are describing "anchor babies". The children of every single non-native immigrant to this country have been anchor babies. (Excepting, of course the children of slaves, who had no choice at all about living here or having babies.) Why is that suddenly a bad thing now?
Specializes in Complex pedi to LTC/SA & now a manager.
@JustBeachyNurse: you are describing "anchor babies". The children of every single non-native immigrant to this country have been anchor babies. (Excepting, of course the children of slaves, who had no choice at all about living here or having babies.) Why is that suddenly a bad thing now?
I don't think it's good or bad. I honestly don't have an opinion either way. It's just reality. And the child born on US soil is considered to be a citizen and therefore entitled to the rights & privileges regardless of their parents country of birth.
As far as professional licensing, working, driving its not for me to decide.
I do take issue with non residents (not referring to citizenship status but physical residence status) getting in state tuition for state colleges. Higher education is not a right it's an earned privilege. I'm referring to a loophole where a non citizen who is a resident of a neighboring state was able to secure instate tuition simply because they were undocumented. That's not fair.
If I think too much about this I would not be able to do my job. Quite a few of my pediatric patients are first generation US born (aka "anchor babies") and it's not my business the citizenship status of their parents unless the parents choose to share. One of my most complex patients has a barely literate immigrant (no idea of her legal status and don't care to know) mother who knows her child's care plan better than many nurses. I just wish my Spanish was more functional.
@JustBeachyNurse: sorry about that. I read more into your post than you intended. It's true, though, that I've read more than one argument using anchor babies as a reason to abolish birthright citizenship. I see that's not where you were going with it.
Specializes in Complex pedi to LTC/SA & now a manager.
@JustBeachyNurse: sorry about that. I read more into your post than you intended. It's true, though, that I've read more than one argument using anchor babies as a reason to abolish birthright citizenship. I see that's not where you were going with it.
No problem. It's hard to convey meaning in words. If I was born in many European countries by happenstance I would be afforded dual citizenship. It's not unique to the U.S. unless you think too much about parental intent
No problem. It's hard to convey meaning in words. If I was born in many European countries by happenstance I would be afforded dual citizenship. It's not unique to the U.S. unless you think too much about parental intent
Though I would make the argument that even the parental intent part isn't unique to the US. It's just the geographical proximity that makes easier for Mexican and Central American parents versus, say, Bangladeshi parents.
Specializes in Complex pedi to LTC/SA & now a manager.
Though I would make the argument that even the parental intent part isn't unique to the US. It's just the geographical proximity that makes easier for Mexican and Central American parents versus, say, Bangladeshi parents.
At one point I read an article certain individuals were booking tourist visas near the end of their and flying over to give birth on US soil. Pretty risky if you ask me for mom & child.
Then again there is a NJ couple who went on a baby moon to Portugal while mom was in week 23. Gave birth. One passed last week the second is struggling to break the 2lb mark at 4 weeks old. The baby apparently now has Portuguese citizenship. Parents can't work on a tourist visa. Extreme but not very different. Now the parents are begging for money on gofundme so they can stay in Portugal with the preemie and pay to fly the other twins remains home for cremation. Main difference, I guess, is they would be happy to return home with their child
At one point I read an article certain individuals were booking tourist visas near the end of their and flying over to give birth on US soil. Pretty risky if you ask me for mom & child.
May be risky beyond a certain point, but it happens. People from North Africa cross the Mediterranean all the time for the same reasons. Ditto from islands in the South Pacific to Australia/NZ.
Regarding the other couple, of course they'd want to come home with their baby. If they have the means to vacation in overseas whilst preparing financially for babies, they're not likely to have circumstances which would cause them to want to live elsewhere to improve their lot.
Specializes in Complex pedi to LTC/SA & now a manager.
May be risky beyond a certain point, but it happens. People from North Africa cross the Mediterranean all the time for the same reasons. Ditto from islands in the South Pacific to Australia/NZ.
Regarding the other couple, of course they'd want to come home with their baby. If they have the means to vacation in overseas whilst preparing financially for babies, they're not likely to have circumstances which would cause them to want to live elsewhere to improve their lot.
Risky referring to those who are in the early stages of labor choosing to cross the border. Risky while pregnant is relative to many factors.
But I doubt they are thinking hey if I cross from Mexico to CA then my baby can be a licensed nurse/physician/attorney/accountant
Risky referring to those who are in the early stages of labor choosing to cross the border. Risky while pregnant is relative to many factors.
I get what you're saying. Most don't come while in early labor, in my experience. Most come in late 3rd tri, say 36ish weeks. I'm speaking of those coming from further abroad than Mexico. It's risky to cross the border from Mexico, period.
Immigrant kids getting benefits, not a hill I really choose to die upon. Most of us in this discussion, all we really did was drop out of the right uterus at the right point in history too. Not really any better or worse than the 'anchor babies' (bit of a pejorative term there IMO) and certainly no more deserving just because our parents fit a certain demographic.
JustBeachyNurse, LPN
13,957 Posts
Children born in the U.S. are entitled to a public US education regardless if their parents are here legally. Some cross the border with birth eminent so that the child is born on US soil and therefore considered a citizen by birth. Do I think that's right? Does it really matter what I think?