Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 06/15/2005 1:11:25 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Nearly one-third of families headed by illegal aliens have children who are U.S. citizens, according to a new study that also found that since the 1990s, more foreigners have entered the U.S. illegally than legally. "The large number of U.S. citizen children born to parents with no legal status highlights one of the thorniest dilemmas in developing policies to deal with the unauthorized population," said Roberto Suro, director of the Pew Hispanic Center, which produced the report based on the 2004 Current Population Survey, a project of the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As Congress and President Bush debate creating a guest-worker program for foreign workers, one key question is whether those workers could bring their families. Mr. Bush has said he supports letting such workers bring their families, but others oppose that because it raises the possibility of so-called "anchor babies," citizen children who are later allowed to petition for legal status for other family members. The president has also called for a broad immigration plan that lets families remain together, which would make it almost impossible to deport illegal aliens who have children who are U.S. citizens. Of 6.3 million illegal alien families in the United States in 2004, 59 percent had no children. Another 24 percent had only U.S. citizen children, 10 percent had children who were not U.S. citizens and another 7 percent had some children who were U.S. citizens and some who were not.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
shut up jeff.
you are making way too much sense.
You apology is on its way. What's the address?
As for welfare, as with the previous ideas, I see your point, but I don't see how this is workable in a practical sense. I'm not dismissing your point, I'm agreeing with it, but in this day and age, I can imagine HRC or someone getting on the tube saying "I will not stand by while mothers are ripped from their children to work" or whatever--even if single moms weren't included in such a plan, you know that that would be a hot button and rile up enough voters that the polticians would back off.
On the other hand, under her husband, a welfare overhaul WAS signed into law (one of the few things I agreed with him on...of course it took him awhile to come around...) that prevents longterm welfare dependency, at least in theory.
If someone knows how we can get all the folks on welfare to CAN work to work, I'm sure we're all eyes and ears.
Simple. For those who can work, it goes like this: No work...no welfare.
I hear more and more talk of this, and it's coming to a boiling point. We're absolutely fed up.
Yes, a revolution is on the way IMO.
Anchor babies are not US citizens. Their parents should be charged under the RICO laws for conspiring to come here, drop an illegal anchor baby and then shake down the American taxpayer to pay for their devious illegal scheme.
. Why do we have a law that says that any baby born here is automatically a citizen, even if the parents are illegal immigrants?
2. Why is there no movement to change this law?
I don't know but if I find the answer I'll ping you two. In answer to #2, I know Tancredo is the most "HONEST" of all in Congress regarding doing something. I would strongly advise anyone to reject anything that doesn't have his approval. He has been trying to actually make serious changes. Not
"just put lipstick on the pig" (what he calls the answer from the White House and those with business ties who are coming up with BullS*it reforms).
Tancredo is one of the co-sponsors for the bill.
H.R.698Title: To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny citizenship at birth to children born in the United States of parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.
Sponsor: Rep Deal, Nathan [GA-10] (introduced 2/9/2005)
Cosponsors (27)
Latest Major Action: 3/2/2005 Referred to House subcommittee.
Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims.If that link doesn't work, go to http://thomas.loc.gov and do a search for H.R. 698.
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
"Cheney said we need these people here to do the jobs americans don't want."
He's right--having ignorant, government-educated kids is something native Americans don't do the way they used to. I bet immigrants do it in spades.
It is NOT thorny. The immigration reform acts of the 1990's did away with the anchor babies.
The rule is simple, the little child goes back with the mother and father and may return when they turn 18.
This is just a puff piece for the dream act as a means of undoing the little Republican sponsored reform that has already passed.
"No one can seem to give an honest, informed, straightforward representation of what can be done to remove the illegals from this country and what this would entail in cost. We can sit here and say "Well they should just stop spending on X, Y or Z," but that's unrealistic, especially with our current congress, which is spending like drunken sailors. And as this article points out, thanks to our wonderful government of some years ago, anyone born here is a citizen and thus their parents have a toehold."
Let's start with enforcing the laws that give the government the right to audit employers'I-9 documentation and checking out businesses that are likely to hire low-end workers, like meat-packing plants and agribusinesses. That's what the departments have been funded for and DON'T do because Congress stops it when big business squeals.
Second, if you're not happy with the costs that would result for those businesses, guess what? Capitalism says you can stop buying what they produce. OSHA, EPA, and DOL regs drive up manufacturers' costs, but nobody seems to care about them!
Your argument boiled down is "Money talks and we shouldn't enforce the law until we can afford it." My argument is that law oughta mean what it says and be enforced as it's written. I think in America, my argument ought to win. Especially on a conservative board. That it probably won't is proof our government is worth every penny Tyson and ADM have paid for it.
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.
It's as clear as it can be, unlike the spin that people have to put on the Constitution to claim the Mexican babysitters are "invaders".
bump for morning read
The closest answer might be the Operation Gate Keeper in which we tried to see if a 66 mile stretch of border could be sealed.
Double fences (some concrete and steel), guard towers, flood lights inferred cameras, ground sensors, patrol roads, horse patrols, ATV patrols, 16 helicopters, fixed wing aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles, trucks, and a ratio of 25 guards per mile were incorporated. An estimated 30,000 t0 40,000 got through anyway.
Apply that ratio of 25 guards per mile to our 105,000 mile border/coastline and it comes out to 2,625,000 guards at an annual cost of $459,375,000,000.00 per year, and still 47,670,000 to 63,630,000 people could cross undetected into the U.S. each year.
Amen to that! Seems like breaking & entering to me.
In answer to #2, please note the tag.
I said pretty blatantly that I don't HAVE an argument; I'm looking for rational and workable plans. Thanks for contributing your thoughts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.