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.

[Freedom42]

Most of the women are coming from South American countries, at least in this area. But like Timothy pointed out, the mothers can be from Korea or any other country for that matter. It's a problem for health departments because often they stay a few months and expect the health departments to take care of all the immunizations for the babies before they fly back home. Obviously there are limited resources.

I understand why women from central American would go to California or Texas. But you say that women from South America come to the East Coast, often flying first-class, and that they pose problems for health departments.

So these women have enough money to buy first-class airplane tickets, then stay here for months and wait for immunizations? What I don't understand is why, if these people are as wealthy as a first-class ticket would suggest, they would pose a problem for health departments or even spend time waiting for services when they can afford private care. I don't dispute "anchor babies," but I've never heard of this on the East Coast and am curious as to how common this is.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

Image from the Jesus General Blog. Bottom line is that I think that the term anchor baby is both pejorative and racist. Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right.

[LydiaNN]

Same thing back in the 70's, in Hawaii, rich women would fly in from Hong Kong, or arabian princesses with their entourages would fly in, so their kid would be an American citizen.

Maybe they should change the law so that the parents have to be citizens first before their kid can be.

It wouldn't mean just changing the law, it would mean changing the Constitution and I don't think it's ever gonna happen.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

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!!!!!:o:o

i agree that americaq does not do a good job of taking care of the needy. the next time you read about how tax cuts benefit america ask yourself "how do we pay for the tax cuts?" the answer for the last 12 years was to cut public benefits and services for the needy.

from paul krugman:(emphasis added)

according to estimates by the tax policy center -- a liberal-oriented institution, but one with a reputation for scrupulous accuracy -- the 2001 tax cut, once fully phased in, will deliver

42 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of the income distribution

. (roughly speaking, that means families earning more than $330,000 per year.) the 2003 tax cut delivers a somewhat smaller share to the top 1 percent, 29.1 percent, but within that concentrates its benefits on the really, really rich. families with incomes over $1 million a year -- a mere

0.13 percent of the population -- will receive 17.3 percent of this year's tax cut

,

more than the total received by the bottom 70 percent of american families

. indeed, the 2003 tax cut has already proved a major boon to some of america's wealthiest people: corporations in which executives or a single family hold a large fraction of stocks are suddenly paying much bigger dividends, which are now taxed at only 15 percent no matter how high the income of their recipient.

from cbpp:

• looked at another way, the cost of the tax cuts will equal the cost of all of these agency budgets combined: education, veterans affairs, homeland security, state, hud, epa, and energy.

• just the cost of the tax cut for the top one percent of households, a group whose average income is about $1 million a year, will be nearly the same as the total amount the federal government spends on education at all levels. the cost of the tax cut for the top one percent also will be about as large as the cost of everything the federal government spends for veterans. declared corporate america has declared war on the middle class in collusion with the gop and bushco. the immigration debate is nothing more than inciting class warfare between the middle class amd the poor. (blame immigrants and the poor for zero wage growth and declining living standards rather than govenment policies that favor declining wages and increased wealth concenration.) its a pretty safe bet that most readers of these pages are in the 70% that got the short end of the tax cut stick. make your own conclusions about who is the real enemy of the american people.

[adrienurse, LPN]

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.

[Laught3r]

I used to live in the upper midwest and what I noticed was not weathly women from South America or from Oriental countries. I noticed women from African countries like Somalia and Sudan to name a couple. The main reason these women came here to have babies was because C-sections were safer here than in their own countries.

These women were all circumcised to various degrees. The doctors in the hospitals would let them go into labor and labor for awhile. But before any danger of a lady partsl delivery occurred the doctor would call the labor failure to progress and give the Mom C-section. This way her circumcision would not have to be redone (which is illegal in the United States).

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Image from the Jesus General Blog. Bottom line is that I think that the term anchor baby is both pejorative and racist. Birthright citizenship is a constitutional right.

Birthright citizenship is NOT a Constitutional Right. This was discussed in length in the Colorado illegal thread. The 14th Amendment has a 2 part test: born here, AND subject to our jurisdiction. Being illegal means NOT subject to jurisdiction therefore, not a citizen.

I would be happy to rediscuss the implications at original hand to the 14th Amendment and how and why that creates the 2 fold test, or the Supreme Cabal decisions of Kim Wong ARK (that specifically granted citizenship based upon the legal rights of the parents to be here, thereby upholding the jurisdictional element of the 2 part test in a way that would deny such rights to those whose parents do NOT have the legal right to be here), Elk v. Wilkins (That denied Native Americans citizenship status because treaties had served to create separate jurisdictions, meaning that birth alone did NOT confer citizenship on Indians), and the Indian Citizenship Act that DID confer citizenship status to Indians, thereby establishing that the 14th's explicit power granted to Congress to implement the Amendment is an additional enumerated power of Congress, and within its authority.

In fact, the Supreme Cabal has stated as recently as the 1970's (Plyler v. Doe) that the concept of 'birthright citizenship' only exists because Congress has failed to clarified the regulations and legal rulings surrounding the 14th Amendment. In fact, in Plyler, the Cabal begged Congress to uphold its duty and act on the issue, something it has still failed to do. If Congress were to clarify this by law, it would be done: no Constitutional change required because the Constitution simply doesn't say that birth alone confers citizenship.

From the Plyler decision: "[t]he Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem"; and that (the Court) was overstepping its bounds by seeking "to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction".

In point of fact, the Supreme Cabal has never, not one time, directly ruled on the status of citizenship for those whose parents do not have the legal jurisdiction to be here. It HAS, however, ruled several times indirectly on the issue. For example, granting citizenship when the parents DO have the legal right to be here, denying citizenship to Native Americans actually born here due to jurisdictional issues (a concept overturned by simple law and not Constitutional change with the Indian Citizenship act), and by disallowing citizenship to those whose parents are here for specific purposes not intended to grant jurisdiction for citizenship, such as ambassadors and foreign diplomats.

As far as the term 'anchor baby' being 'pejorative': if people didn't abuse our generosity, then they wouldn't have to worry about us being piqued about it. If it IS pejorative, then it's well earned. It certainly isn't a rascist term. The concept doesn't deal with a state of a person's being, but rather, about a specific and planned action. This issue regards motives, not race.

~faith,

Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

from paul krugman:(emphasis added)

according to estimates by the tax policy center -- a liberal-oriented institution, but one with a reputation for scrupulous accuracy -- the 2001 tax cut, once fully phased in, will deliver

42 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of the income distribution

. (roughly speaking, that means families earning more than $330,000 per year.) the 2003 tax cut delivers a somewhat smaller share to the top 1 percent, 29.1 percent, but within that concentrates its benefits on the really, really rich. families with incomes over $1 million a year -- a mere

0.13 percent of the population -- will receive 17.3 percent of this year's tax cut

,

more than the total received by the bottom 70 percent of american families

. indeed, the 2003 tax cut has already proved a major boon to some of america's wealthiest people: corporations in which executives or a single family hold a large fraction of stocks are suddenly paying much bigger dividends, which are now taxed at only 15 percent no matter how high the income of their recipient.

from cbpp:

• looked at another way, the cost of the tax cuts will equal the cost of all of these agency budgets combined: education, veterans affairs, homeland security, state, hud, epa, and energy.

• just the cost of the tax cut for the top one percent of households, a group whose average income is about $1 million a year, will be nearly the same as the total amount the federal government spends on education at all levels. the cost of the tax cut for the top one percent also will be about as large as the cost of everything the federal government spends for veterans. declared corporate america has declared war on the middle class in collusion with the gop and bushco. the immigration debate is nothing more than inciting class warfare between the middle class amd the poor. (blame immigrants and the poor for zero wage growth and declining living standards rather than govenment policies that favor declining wages and increased wealth concenration.) its a pretty safe bet that most readers of these pages are in the 70% that got the short end of the tax cut stick. make your own conclusions about who is the real enemy of the american people.

the reason why tax cuts do not directly favor the lowest 20% is that, once you reduce the tax burden to zero, no further tax cuts can be applied. indirectly, the growth stimulated by tax cuts favor the lowest 20% of earners most of all. the rising tide of economic growth does indeed raise all boats. that is simply a fact, well represented by income revenue data. the poor simply have more to gain by that rising tide (and more to lose by repealing growth).

simply put, the tax cuts have not only increased overall economic growth, they have resulted in more revenue to the treasury as a result, and that revenue is overwhelmingly paid by the highest income producers. the 'rich' are paying more taxes as a result of the cuts, and the economic growth they create. that is a fact, not an opinion.

your stats are intentionally misleading in that while the richest 1% do get the biggest cut, they still pay more than 34% of all taxes, the top 5% pay more than 53% of all taxes, the top 10% pay more than 65% of all taxes, the top 25% pay more than 83% of all taxes, and the top 50% pay more than 96% of all taxes. when the bottom income earning half of all americans pay less than 4% of taxes, it's very difficult to argue that they shoulder a disproportionate share of the tax burden.

no matter how you look at it, our tax code is overwhelmingly progressive: the more you make, the more burden you shoulder. the tax cuts not only didn't change that, many of the provisions (elimination of 'marriage penalty', lower rates across the board) served to entrench the progressiveness of the code. i'd say that the bottom half of income earners paying less than 4% of all taxes shows how remarkably progressive the tax code actually is! in fact, if anything the current administration deserves kudos for helping the lowest rungs of our economy with its tax policy. that is the principal benefit of the tax cuts.

this is especially true in that, due to the earned income tax credit, the bottom 20% actually get a redistribution of wealth due to the tax code: they get back much more then they pay in. i'd call that the biggest proportional 'tax cut' on the books. should we then argue that that 'tax cut' be repealed, as well?

in fact, tax cuts stimulate growth. the biggest beneficiaries of growth are those on the bottom rung of our economy. more than any other measure, tax increases hurt those at the economic bottom the most, not the top. ultimately, if you stiffle economic growth, the rich can 'ride the wave'; the poor cannot. from a pure economic perspective, tax increases are anti-poor reforms. tax cuts have brought us an unemployment rate of 4.6% (5% is considered 'full employment' as there is always a proportion of people 'between jobs'). when tax increases devastate that statistic, who hurts the most? rich americans that have to expend a tad more of their disposal income? or poor americans that no longer have a job because the funds used to pay for their positions now go to the gov't, instead?

all you need to do is harken back to the late 70's and 'stagflation', runaway inflation combined with the highest unemployment rates this side of a depression to see what confiscatory tax policies (70% for the highest earners) can do to the poorest americans. and the cure for that was simple: reagan tax cuts that spurred growth, reduced inflation and unemployment, and doubled treasury receipts (cuts directly lead to twice as much overall taxation) inside of a decade.

the truth about tax rates and the politics of class warfare

as evidence that your 'scrupulous liberal think tank' is playing with numbers, might i point out that in one place you quote them stating that the top 1% of earners includes all those that make more then $330,000, then in another place states that the average income of one percenters is millionaire status. while both might be technically true, your piece inserts different accounting of those statistics in different places not to insure accuracy, but to ensure maximum political effect in its arguments.

~faith,

timothy.

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

i also agree that the concept of "birthright citizenship", has come and gone, and overstayed its welcome. i would make it a priority to end this abuse of the american citizens, and not only end the practice, but revoke the citizenship of those who were granted it in the past decade.

lindarn, rn, bsn, ccrn

spokane, washington

what you are proposing is unconstitutional.

from the us constitution:

section 9. the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

in other words congress cannot unilaterally make a change to citizenship laws after the fact.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

Simple facts:

Individual Income accounted for 899 BILLION in tax revenue in 2005

House Budget Committee - Democrats

Individual Income accounted for 797 BILLION in tax revenue in 2000

The Economic and Revenue Effects of Reducing Federal Income Tax Rates by 10 Percent

As I cited above, the top 50% of Americans pay more than 96% of that bill.

Net effect of tax cuts: 102 BILLION dollars YEARLY in more taxes paid by the 'rich' within 5 yrs of implementation.

Simple fact: the 'rich' aren't paying less taxes, but considerably MORE as a result of the 'cuts'.

By any objective measure, it is an overwhelming measure of success for the poor when the gov't can devise a scheme to make the 'rich' pay not only MORE overall taxes, but the greatest proportion of taxes. That is the net result of President Bush's pro-poor tax policies.

Reversing that trend would NOT be a pro-poor policy.

~faith,

Timothy.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

what you are proposing is unconstitutional.

from the us constitution:

section 9. the migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person.

the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.

in other words congress cannot unilaterally make a change to citizenship laws after the fact.

of course it's not unconstitutional. we've discussed this before. in fact, your citation above specifically includes the concept of importation as the states 'think proper to admit'. by definition, that excludes illegal importation of persons: the importation of persons the states did not think proper to admit.

as far as congressional authority to implement the 14th amendment, the amendment itself grants exclusive authority for congress, and only congress, to do so:

14th amendment: "section 5. the congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." this change 'amends' the original constitution. that's why it's called an 'amendment'.

in fact, the original language time limits this function: congress can act, but not before 1808.

the immediately preceding section lists the enumerated powers of congress. the 14th amendment specifically adds congressional authority to act on this issue as an additional enumerated power.

in fact, the implementation of immigration limits by the federal gov't has been an uncontested power of congress, for years.

as far as 'revoking' citizenship, habaes corpus isn't on point, at that point the constitution is moving on to a whole range of issues regarding the congress; it had moved past the issue of legal immigration and never addressed the issue of illegal immigration. the constitution leaves that issue for congress to decide.

~faith,

timothy.

[HM2VikingRN, 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.