After capture by Border Patrol, immigrant gives birth

The Brownsville Herald ^ | November 30, 2007 | Kevin Sieff

[Travis McGee]

Oh yes indeed! I credited or at least pinged you the first few times after I stole it from you. Thanks!

[gubamyster]

ping

[television is just wrong]

no it doesn’t, it only was interpreted that way. which is of course a misinterpretation.

[afnamvet]

The woman was under arrest after she crossed the Rio Grande. She asked the BP for medical attention and it was provided bt the BP. She should be deported by existing USC Title 8 code.

Under current USSC interpretation, the delivered baby is a "person" born here and is therefore a citizen. Thrown into the mix, the mother was under arrest at the time of delivery. Is the child now considered a citizen if the mother was under arrest and an officer of the Border Patrol was on guard?

It would be an interesting court case at the supremes.

[ArcadeQuarters]

She’s an unfit mother. Deport her and raise the baby as a conservative Republican.

[dufekin]

Try US v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). That Supreme Court decision explains the meaning of the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court ruled that the United States could not bar Wong Kim Ark from entering the United States under the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. After a long stay in his parents’ native China, Wong Kim Ark returned to the city of his birth, San Francisco, California, but no government official could deny him access to his country. Because he was a citizen through the Fourteenth Amendment, so too were his Chinese-born children under then-prevailing law that granted citizenship to any child of American parentage who elected to claim it.

[dufekin]

Wrong. When a diplomat commits a crime—say, illegal parking, enslavement, rape, or any other common pattern of behavior of any United Nations official—the United States lacks jurisdiction under international law. We cannot charge such diplomats with crimes; at most, we can issue a sternly worded letter respectfully requesting them to remove themselves from our country and threatening to revoke our diplomatic reception.

The jurisdiction argument also applies to two other situations: foreigners in areas of the country under hostile military occupation, and American Indian tribes with whom the United States related through treaty alone (nobody fits into this later exception anymore). This definition of jurisdiction derives from English common law.

If an illegal immigrant commits any crime on American territory, he is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and of the State wherein he/she committed said crime. We can and do charge illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, and other aliens with crimes, grant them jury trials, and throw them in jail.

Some frequently argue that illegal immigrants fall outside our jurisdiction because they enter illegally (or violate visas or other terms of legal entry). But that argument obscures a key difference between illegal aliens and diplomats: we choose not to exercise jurisdiction over the former but lack jurisdiction over the latter. Entry into the United States with neither diplomatic credentials nor participation in an invading military force nor membership in a group of American Indians not taxed automatically subjects one to our jurisdiction.

My opinion: we need to start exercising our jurisdiction as expeditiously as practicable over the entire Southwestern border region and to drastically reduce the problem of illegal entry along said border. That means constructing and patrolling a fence or some other easily enforceable barrier along the entire border. If illegal immigrants never entered the United States, then they would not procreate children here, and their children wouldn’t receive American citizenship upon birth.

[dufekin]

One name for you: Wong Kim Ark.

The case: United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

Read it here: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZS.html

[skeeter]

Nine months' pregnant and taking off on a cross-desert hike?

What WAS this woman thinking? /s

[Reaganwuzthebest]

You're right but that involved a legal resident. As of yet no USSC case has addressed specifically how the 14th Amendment pertains to illegal aliens though I do believe the US v. Wong Kim Ark decision was the basis by which the executive branch began applying anchor baby status to the illegals.

As was previously stated the best way to resolve the problem is for the executive to undo their arbitrary policy and let it go through the courts since Congress at this time won't touch it with a ten foot pole. If they won't then states like Oklahoma may have to do it for them.

[3AngelaD]

Another difference being that the diplomatic credentials have to be submitted to our government for APPROVAL first, and accepted, before the individual enjoys diplomatic status.

[brytlea]

And of course, if we did away with their ability to get any sort of taxpayer paid benefits, it would also create less incentive to come over.
susie

[21stCenturyFreeThinker]

And if we did away with the jobs that businesses provide them the problem would dry up in a heartbeat. No one seems interested in severe sanctions against business even though they sponsor the problem.

[Tammy8]

This anchor baby stuff has to end- seriously! Many Mexican citizens who have no desire to live or work in U.S. will still make sure they deliver their baby here for the citizenship. This issue came to light for many when they tried to stop the practice of allowing Mexican children to cross the border daily to attend U.S. schools- it was discovered most of the students from Mexico are U.S. citizens. Their mother crossed only to have them on U.S. soil- never lived or worked in U.S. and never intended to. It is simply crazy that we hand out citizenship so easily.

[holyscroller]

After capture by Border Patrol, immigrant gives birth.

Don't we ever turn these people back at the border? Seems to me an intimidating Border Patrol agent on the bank should be shooing them back to Mexico, not giving them a helping hand over to our side. It would sure save a multitude of problems to stop their entry in the first place...yes, even the ones in labor. Surely they knew how to pop babies out down there before they discovered those nice first-class American delivery rooms.... and all those nice benefits. Our first priority should being stopping them before they get in, or turning them back before they set foot on our soil. The incredible expense they cost us the instant they touch our side of the line.

[brytlea]

I think most of us are for a multi faceted approach. I’m all for sanctions against employers. However, you have to get rid of ALL of the magnets that draw them here.
susie