Illegal immigrant parents might have to leave disabled toddler

[Addie_Goodvibes 0]

To blame America and the American people for a situation that the illegal aliens brought onto themselves and their children is equally absurd. What you sow is what you reap.

Well stated.

[rebeccajo 14]

Marc - Here's the exact wording of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, from the Cornell University of Law website:

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.

[rebeccajo 14]

To say children, of any variety, are "running up a huge bill for the taxpayer" is downright cold.

So, I suppose that our not funding birth clinics, pre- and post-natal care all around the globe makes us a very cold nation? Newsflash: Most countries do not award citizenship to children born on their soil unless those children are those of lawful residents or citizens of said country. That doesn't make those nations "cold" nations. It's fairly common sense.

No Reinhard, I'm not talking about what happens anywhere else but on our own soil. And I'm not talking about residency either. I'm talking about looking into the face of any child and considering a problem they have as a 'drain' on taxpayers.

Period. End. Nothing Else.

I talked specifically about the drain on taxpayers that is caused by the provision of birthright citizenship. I did not advocate not caring for a child - any child - in need. We could and very likely would do that without that child being a citizen by birth.

Well, if we would do that, then don't bring up the issue of whether or not the child's care is a further drain on the system!

This child has nothing to do with the parents immigration status. It should receive medical attention and the parents problem should be a different matter. If their deportation should be delayed it's no skin off anyones nose.

There are two issues here that I'd like not to get confused: One is the care that we provide to achild in need. The other is the huge number of births that we as taxpayers fund for no other reason than people looking to give birth here so their kids can be US citizens - and the benefits they subsequently get to collect on behalf of those childen. I think it's time to consider putting an end to the latter.

Reinhard - you've got a kid and so do I. And I know you're a good dad. I'm not EVEN thinking you would deny care for an ailing child you saw. Hell, you might step in to help get them care yourself.

People 'use' children all the time. It's an unfortunate fact of humanity. USC parents use their kids to get government benefits just as often (if not more so) than illegal entrants to the country.

I don't like to see kids brought into these discussions. They don't ask for the circumstances of their birth. If we are half the nation we profess to be, then we take all the outside factors out of an equation, and we worry about the child.

[Heracles 417]

Yep.

They recently passed a law like that in Australia. One of the parents has to be Australian otherwise the child is not granted citizenship.

Otherwise people could simply fly here during a pregnancy and have the child here. Bam the child is American. Therefore the parents would be egible to apply for GC soon after..

As I pointed out above, such a law would be unconstitutional in this country. It would require a much more significant legal effort to pass such a law in the country.

The Constitution is a wonderful thing.

It is time it is brought into the 21st century. You do not have to change the fundamentals but lines need to be drawn. Actually this open ended attitude towards the constitution is why the US is having so many problems right now. Apart from communist and dictatorships very few other nations have this stubborn attitude about something written in a different era; many hundreds of years ago.

There is no such thing as common sense anymore. Therefore so many things that where once considered common sense now need the appropriate laws to enforce them. IE EG People jumping the border to get a free ride in another nation.

[rebeccajo 14]

Yep.

They recently passed a law like that in Australia. One of the parents has to be Australian otherwise the child is not granted citizenship.

Otherwise people could simply fly here during a pregnancy and have the child here. Bam the child is American. Therefore the parents would be egible to apply for GC soon after..

As I pointed out above, such a law would be unconstitutional in this country. It would require a much more significant legal effort to pass such a law in the country.

The Constitution is a wonderful thing.

It is time it is brought into the 21st century. You do not have to change the fundamentals but lines need to be drawn. Actually this open ended attitude towards the constitution is why the US is having so many problems right now. Apart from communist and dictatorships very few other nations have this stubborn attitude about something written in a different era; many hundreds of years ago.

There is no such thing as common sense anymore. Therefore so many things that where once considered common sense now need the appropriate laws to enforce them. IE EG People jumping the border to get a free ride in another nation.

How about some of those other ancient concepts like Due Process of Law and the Right to Bear Arms? How about those fundamentals, Infidel? Time to clamp down on those too?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To say children, of any variety, are "running up a huge bill for the taxpayer" is downright cold.

So, I suppose that our not funding birth clinics, pre- and post-natal care all around the globe makes us a very cold nation? Newsflash: Most countries do not award citizenship to children born on their soil unless those children are those of lawful residents or citizens of said country. That doesn't make those nations "cold" nations. It's fairly common sense.

No Reinhard, I'm not talking about what happens anywhere else but on our own soil. And I'm not talking about residency either. I'm talking about looking into the face of any child and considering a problem they have as a 'drain' on taxpayers.

Period. End. Nothing Else.

I talked specifically about the drain on taxpayers that is caused by the provision of birthright citizenship. I did not advocate not caring for a child - any child - in need. We could and very likely would do that without that child being a citizen by birth.

Well, if we would do that, then don't bring up the issue of whether or not the child's care is a further drain on the system!

This child has nothing to do with the parents immigration status. It should receive medical attention and the parents problem should be a different matter. If their deportation should be delayed it's no skin off anyones nose.

There are two issues here that I'd like not to get confused: One is the care that we provide to achild in need. The other is the huge number of births that we as taxpayers fund for no other reason than people looking to give birth here so their kids can be US citizens - and the benefits they subsequently get to collect on behalf of those childen. I think it's time to consider putting an end to the latter.

Reinhard - you've got a kid and so do I. And I know you're a good dad. I'm not EVEN thinking you would deny care for an ailing child you saw. Hell, you might step in to help get them care yourself.

People 'use' children all the time. It's an unfortunate fact of humanity. USC parents use their kids to get government benefits just as often (if not more so) than illegal entrants to the country.

I don't like to see kids brought into these discussions. They don't ask for the circumstances of their birth. If we are half the nation we profess to be, then we take all the outside factors out of an equation, and we worry about the child.

Which is why I said that there are two issues here that I'd like not to get confused.

[Heracles 417]

Before anyone argues with me, the stats are there. That is when comparing crime rates, freedoms, happiness, quality of life, equality, choice etc. Does not take much to see which approach works and which approach does not.

[Heracles 417]

How about some of those other ancient concepts like Due Process of Law and the Right to Bear Arms? How about those fundamentals, Infidel? Time to clamp down on those too?

Exactly my point. Time to draw lines. The right to bear arms is a good example. There should be limits, rules and guidelines to follow rather than simply handing a gun out to whoever wants one.

[rebeccajo 14]

Before anyone argues with me, the stats are there. That is when comparing crime rates, freedoms, happiness, quality of life, equality, choice etc. Does not take much to see which approach works and which approach does not.

What stats and about what?

[rebeccajo 14]

To say children, of any variety, are "running up a huge bill for the taxpayer" is downright cold.

So, I suppose that our not funding birth clinics, pre- and post-natal care all around the globe makes us a very cold nation? Newsflash: Most countries do not award citizenship to children born on their soil unless those children are those of lawful residents or citizens of said country. That doesn't make those nations "cold" nations. It's fairly common sense.

No Reinhard, I'm not talking about what happens anywhere else but on our own soil. And I'm not talking about residency either. I'm talking about looking into the face of any child and considering a problem they have as a 'drain' on taxpayers.

Period. End. Nothing Else.

I talked specifically about the drain on taxpayers that is caused by the provision of birthright citizenship. I did not advocate not caring for a child - any child - in need. We could and very likely would do that without that child being a citizen by birth.

Well, if we would do that, then don't bring up the issue of whether or not the child's care is a further drain on the system!

This child has nothing to do with the parents immigration status. It should receive medical attention and the parents problem should be a different matter. If their deportation should be delayed it's no skin off anyones nose.

There are two issues here that I'd like not to get confused: One is the care that we provide to achild in need. The other is the huge number of births that we as taxpayers fund for no other reason than people looking to give birth here so their kids can be US citizens - and the benefits they subsequently get to collect on behalf of those childen. I think it's time to consider putting an end to the latter.

Reinhard - you've got a kid and so do I. And I know you're a good dad. I'm not EVEN thinking you would deny care for an ailing child you saw. Hell, you might step in to help get them care yourself.

People 'use' children all the time. It's an unfortunate fact of humanity. USC parents use their kids to get government benefits just as often (if not more so) than illegal entrants to the country.

I don't like to see kids brought into these discussions. They don't ask for the circumstances of their birth. If we are half the nation we profess to be, then we take all the outside factors out of an equation, and we worry about the child.

Which is why I said that there are two issues here that I'd like not to get confused.

Ok. So the story in the article says the parents are being deported and it says the baby can get the care she needs in the US if she remains here. If these facts are true, I don't understand why anyone who is 'anti-amnesty' can see a problem with what is going down.

[tmma 467]

Some of the responses here appear to be the desired reaction of the author of the editorial; because it is causing a " knee jerk" emotional response, that is ultimatly clouding the facts of this case....IMO.

[rebeccajo 14]

Some of the responses here appear to be the desired reaction of the author of the editorial; because it is causing a " knee jerk" emotional response, that is ultimatly clouding the facts of this case....IMO.

I agree it's media spin. But I don't see what there is about the facts to cause outrage among those who are 'anti-amnesty' or believe in the concept of 'anchor babies'.

The government is deporting the parents. Isn't that what everybody is always screaming for?

[Heracles 417]

Before anyone argues with me, the stats are there. That is when comparing crime rates, freedoms, happiness, quality of life, equality, choice etc. Does not take much to see which approach works and which approach does not.

What stats and about what?

The ones I mentioned in my next sentence. The US ranks poorly in all of those areas.

For me personally right is right and wrong is wrong. I don't just go by something written in a different era. Something which is now being abused by so many to promote their own agenda. Many in the US still do not comprehend prevention is better than cure.

Every open ended law and rule has its consequences; Its equal and opposite reaction.

Edited July 12, 2007 by Infidel

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

To say children, of any variety, are "running up a huge bill for the taxpayer" is downright cold.

So, I suppose that our not funding birth clinics, pre- and post-natal care all around the globe makes us a very cold nation? Newsflash: Most countries do not award citizenship to children born on their soil unless those children are those of lawful residents or citizens of said country. That doesn't make those nations "cold" nations. It's fairly common sense.

No Reinhard, I'm not talking about what happens anywhere else but on our own soil. And I'm not talking about residency either. I'm talking about looking into the face of any child and considering a problem they have as a 'drain' on taxpayers.

Period. End. Nothing Else.

I talked specifically about the drain on taxpayers that is caused by the provision of birthright citizenship. I did not advocate not caring for a child - any child - in need. We could and very likely would do that without that child being a citizen by birth.

Well, if we would do that, then don't bring up the issue of whether or not the child's care is a further drain on the system!

This child has nothing to do with the parents immigration status. It should receive medical attention and the parents problem should be a different matter. If their deportation should be delayed it's no skin off anyones nose.

There are two issues here that I'd like not to get confused: One is the care that we provide to achild in need. The other is the huge number of births that we as taxpayers fund for no other reason than people looking to give birth here so their kids can be US citizens - and the benefits they subsequently get to collect on behalf of those childen. I think it's time to consider putting an end to the latter.

Reinhard - you've got a kid and so do I. And I know you're a good dad. I'm not EVEN thinking you would deny care for an ailing child you saw. Hell, you might step in to help get them care yourself.

People 'use' children all the time. It's an unfortunate fact of humanity. USC parents use their kids to get government benefits just as often (if not more so) than illegal entrants to the country.

I don't like to see kids brought into these discussions. They don't ask for the circumstances of their birth. If we are half the nation we profess to be, then we take all the outside factors out of an equation, and we worry about the child.

Which is why I said that there are two issues here that I'd like not to get confused.

Ok. So the story in the article says the parents are being deported and it says the baby can get the care she needs in the US if she remains here. If these facts are true, I don't understand why anyone who is 'anti-amnesty' can see a problem with what is going down.

The main objective of the article is to cloud the issue at hand (a couple of aliens that snuck into this country and has been cheating, deceiving and ignoring lawful orders of the governernment ever since and even after having been afforded due process) and paint a picture of an unfair and cold (also often referred to as broken) immigration system that makes these poor parents choose between family unity and medical care for their child. It's sickening that the plight of this child is used shamelessly to cloud the "we're above your fcuking laws" attitude of the parents.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yep.

They recently passed a law like that in Australia. One of the parents has to be Australian otherwise the child is not granted citizenship.

Otherwise people could simply fly here during a pregnancy and have the child here. Bam the child is American. Therefore the parents would be egible to apply for GC soon after..

As I pointed out above, such a law would be unconstitutional in this country. It would require a much more significant legal effort to pass such a law in the country.

The Constitution is a wonderful thing.

Amen, brother.