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.

[OB_RN]

How about those from the Arabic speaking countries??? They come, deliver and go home with thier little American citizen, who will be raised in the middle east, and possibly sent back here as an adult with all the priveleges/ rights of any other US Citizen.

Am I concerned????

Oh yes!!!

Is our govt concerned? Apparently NOT!

[CJ777]

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.

I hope I didn't come across wrong. I totally agree with Zashagalka. I found his comment as very intelligent and useful information. I have to try (especailly at work) not let it get under my skin. Because it is VERY irritating that our country gets taken advantage of so much. If I went to their country. I would probably be more likely to get shot. Than to get FREE medical care, etc..But I am like Zashagalka. Some of it is of our own doing. Our government needs to tighten some things a bit. I am all about helping our own first. There are bred, born, USA babies /Mothers we need to attend to. Please don't take this wrong. I love children from EVERYWHERE. But sometimes charity should start at home. As I said. Go to the countries these people have come from. See if we are welcomed with open arms. LOL. Not likely. I really enjoy these forums. I feel that everyone has a point that is good. Maybe at times I don't feel as strongly. But almost always they have a very good POINT. Thanks for reading. I don't usaually write so much. It is New Years EVE. I am babysitting. My 10 1/2month old Grandson is sleeping. I am trying to stay up until the NEW YEAR>>>LOL:balloons:

[HM2VikingRN, RN]

article 1 section 9 was a limitation of the power of congress to outlaw the practice of slavery. it has nothing to do with the issue of establishing a uniform naturalization process.

see: crs/lii annotated constitution article i

powers denied to congress

general purpose of section 9

this section of the constitution (containing eight clauses restricting or prohibiting legislation affecting the importation of slaves, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, the enactment of bills of attainder or ex post facto laws,

interestingly the qualifications for president read:http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html#section1

no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the united states, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president

this phrasing certainly tends to support the idea that citizenship was seen as a birthright from day one by the framers of the constitution.

[imenid37]

The undocumented worker who works in a factory or picking fruit, etc. and delivers is an entirely different story than the woman who breezes in 1st class from the Mid-East or S. America to deliver. I don't have a problem w/ the poor person who can't afford care and is here trying to survive. The employers who are benefitting from those folks should foot the bill. I have a huge problem w/ the princess who flies in. I guess you have to deliver her. Why not make the person (parent) financially obligated for the bill or otherwise they can't return to the U.S.? For example, you can't send vaccine records, birth certificate, etc. unless the financial obligations have been met.

[hope3456, ASN, RN]

I don't have a problem w/ the poor person who can't afford care and is here trying to survive. The employers who are benefitting from those folks should foot the bill.

Very good point.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

no person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the united states, at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of president

this phrasing certainly tends to support the idea that citizenship was seen as a birthright from day one by the framers of the constitution.

that phrasing does nothing of the kind. the office of president was considered so important that the founders felt it was too risky to trust it to those whose allegiences might be to another nation because they were naturalized.

limiting the office to 'natural born' citizens was an effort to ensure the loyalty of the officeholder. that says nothing about any ideas related to citizenship for anybody else but the executive office holder.

in any case, this is not a limit placed upon the congress or judiciary. so the framers obviously were not convicted to the concept of 'birthright' in general, but with the executive in particular. in addition, there is nowhere in here that establishes birth as the sole determination of citizenship for the executive but rather, simply as a minimum one.

in addition, that says nothing about a 2 fold test for citizenship that was adopted one hundred years later, with a reconstruction amendment to the constitution.

you are incorrect with this interpretation, but even if you weren't, the 14th amendment would specifically rebut this interpretaton as it amends the orginal document and therefore, original intent in this matter.

i'll concede the first point you made about article 1 section 9 being primarily about slavery, however, it is still not on point for mulitiple reasons 1. it wasn't the founding fathers intent to address citizenship rules generally with the clause, 2. the limitation ended in 1808, and 3. the 14th amendment would have controlling authority on the concept of what defines a citizen as it amends the constitution for this specific purpose.

~faith,

timothy.

[Freedom42]

The undocumented worker who works in a factory or picking fruit, etc. and delivers is an entirely different story than the woman who breezes in 1st class from the Mid-East or S. America to deliver. I don't have a problem w/ the poor person who can't afford care and is here trying to survive. The employers who are benefitting from those folks should foot the bill. I have a huge problem w/ the princess who flies in. I guess you have to deliver her. Why not make the person (parent) financially obligated for the bill or otherwise they can't return to the U.S.? For example, you can't send vaccine records, birth certificate, etc. unless the financial obligations have been met.

I agree. It was this disparity that first got me interested in this thread. I wondered what burden if any these wealthy women posed to health departments, and therefore taxpayers, as one poster suggested.

In doing some research, what I've been able to find is that wealthy women from South Korea do frequently fly to Los Angeles to give birth; according to the LA Times and some other publications, they pay cash (upwards of $20,000). Taxpayers do not foot their bills. I was also intrigued to read that these births often take place not at U.S. hospitals but at private birthing centers set up by Korean business interests. These centers are specifically marketed toward Korean women and their cash payments.

This post is not meant to imply anything about birthright citizenship. I was only interested in the implication that wealthy foreign women take advantage of the U.S. system at the expense of taxpayers.

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

At issue in the Constitutional discussion here is what defines a citizen. We are looking at this along the specific issue of anchor babies, to wit: Do we need another Constitutional Amendment to deny citizenship to those born on our soil whose parents have no right to be here. The answer is NO. We already have such an amendment, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. In its plain text, that Amendment specifically states that birthright is not enough; the determination to be a citizen requires another test: the jurisdiction to be here. That Amendment also gives Congress the rights to ENFORCE that two prong test. To date, anchor babies are being given citizenship status because of rulings by HHS and the State Department.

Neither the Congress nor the Supreme Cabal have ever directly addressed this issue. If the Congress Acts, the issue becomes moot. The Constitution is very clear on this: Congress has controlling authority:

In plain language, two methods of determining citizenship have been generally used historically: birthright and bloodline. Our Constitution uses a modified form of both of these concepts in determining citizenship. Birthright (modified to include naturalization) and bloodline (expressed as the jurisdictional right to be here: your bloodline belongs on this soil.)

How clearly is this a two-part test. It's plain language:

14th Amendment:

"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."

That is clearly a two fold test. 1. Born OR naturalized, AND 2. subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

And who has the authority to enforce this:

"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

This doesn't require a new amendment, we already have one ON POINT. What it requires is Congress to get off its duff and do its duty on this issue. They haven't and there are several politically calculated reasons why, but that's another discussion.

https://allnurses.com/forums/f112/not-so-modern-arguments-favor-slavery-171314.html

~faith,

Timothy.

[ann945n, RN]

This is a big sore spot for me. IMO if you dont pay taxes and are not here legally we should not foot the bill for your birth and if you are not a citizen your child shouldnt be. I know this is not what the law says but this issue alone will drain our health care system. We are not a country of free-bes so GET OUT, you had 9 months to think about what you were gonna do. I know it sounds harsh but laws need to change

[ZASHAGALKA, RN]

This is a big sore spot for me. IMO if you dont pay taxes and are not here legally we should not foot the bill for your birth and if you are not a citizen your child shouldnt be. I know this is not what the law says but this issue alone will drain our health care system. We are not a country of free-bes so GET OUT, you had 9 months to think about what you were gonna do. I know it sounds harsh but laws need to change

The point is that denying citizenships to those born here of illegals IS the law (Constitutional Law). But, until Congress enforces that law, the rulings of government agencies are the uncontested policy of this nation.

There is a difference between law and regulation. The reason why we have granted citizenship to these children is because of gov't regulation, absent a law that would enforce the Constitution and overturn those regulations.

In 2005, members of the House proposed the Citizenship Reform Act that would make just these changes to the law. It got lost in the whole Immigration debate. However, this is an issue that is sure to come up again when the Immigration debate takes off again later this year:

Text: Citizenship Reform Act of 2005

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

Viking is right about one thing: if such a law were passed, it would almost immediately fast-track to the Supreme Cabal. The Court, however, is much more conservative then in the past. It would take 3-4 yrs for such a law to pass and make its way to the Court. In that time, it is highly likely that there will be at least one more change to the makeup of that Court, if not 2. IF President Bush gets to nominate another member, or a Republican President after 2008, then it is highly likely such a bill WOULD pass muster with the Cabal.

From Feudalism to Consent : Rethinking Birthright Citizenship

Birthright Citizenship and the Constitution

~faith,

Timothy.

[hope3456, ASN, RN]

Here is a 'letter to the editor' that was posted in response to the original article....kinda scary about not having a DR in attendance but the writer brings the point home about the issue of 'payment.'

Regardless of the constitutionality of whether these babies are 'legal' or not, childbirth is expensive....for whoever has to pay for it.

Re "Delivering dual benefits," Dec. 23

The Times' article infuriated me. When my wife was pregnant with our second child, I was laid off and reluctantly went on unemployment. I delivered my daughter myself in the labor room with the help of a student nurse, who later admitted to me it was the first live birth she had attended. The hospital presented me with a bill that included doctor's fees and delivery room fees. I complained about not having a doctor in attendance or the use of the delivery room, and they reduced the bill by $100. We eventually paid the balance.

The noncitizens in this article all had jobs. Why couldn't they work out a payment schedule like we did? The way it stands now, it looks as if we are still paying the hospital for noncitizens' children even after we paid off our original debt.

[Freedom42]

The Times' article infuriated me. When my wife was pregnant with our second child, I was laid off and reluctantly went on unemployment. I delivered my daughter myself in the labor room with the help of a student nurse, who later admitted to me it was the first live birth she had attended. The hospital presented me with a bill that included doctor's fees and delivery room fees. I complained about not having a doctor in attendance or the use of the delivery room, and they reduced the bill by $100. We eventually paid the balance.

I find this extremely hard to believe. What hospital, or more specifically, what hospital's lawyer, would allow this to happen? I'm surprised the paper would even publish this; either the hospital's name was omitted by an editor or the paper couldn't confirm any of it and went ahead with it anyway. The only reason this letter is significant is because if fuels apocryphal tales.