It's About Time!!

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
65,272
13,538
146
http://www.latimes.com/news/lo...9jul13,0,4982035.story

Activists push ballot initiative to end state benefits for illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children

"The measure would end public benefits to illegal residents, challenge the citizenship of their U.S.-born children, cut welfare payments to those children and impose new birth certificate requirements.

By Teresa Watanabe
July 13, 2009

In a stretch of desert just north of the U.S.-Mexico border, men and women in khakis and the colors of the American flag recently gathered at a border watch post they call Camp Vigilance and discussed their next offensive in the nation's immigration wars.

The target: Illegal immigrants and their U.S.-born children who receive public benefits.

The plan: a California ballot initiative that would end public benefits for illegal immigrants, cut off welfare payments for their children and impose new rules for birth certificates.

"We will be out in full force to qualify this initiative," said Barbara Coe, who helped develop Proposition 187, the 1994 measure that would have ended benefits to illegal immigrants but was ruled unconstitutional. "Illegals and their children are costing the state billions of dollars. It's invasion by birth canal."

Supporters of the initiative, recently unveiled by San Diego political activist Ted Hilton, hope to challenge the citizenship of children born in the United States to parents who are here illegally.


The 14th Amendment states that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Backers of the initiative argue that illegal residents are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and that, as a result, their U.S.-born children should not be citizens.

Before Hilton, Coe and their allies can argue that point in court, however, they have many hurdles to overcome. Whether the initiative will even make it to the ballot remains to be seen. Organizers have just begun to collect the 488,000 voter signatures required to qualify the measure for the June 2010 election. So far, Hilton said, they have raised about $350,000 -- far short of the $4 million generally needed to pay signature gatherers to get a statewide initiative over that hurdle.

But illegal immigration was a powerful political issue in the economic downturn of the early 1990s, and the initiative's backers hope it will be again. Hilton said the group is enlisting an "enormous volunteer base" for the signature gathering. His organization, Taxpayer Revolution, has gathered endorsements from elected officials, including Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-Huntington Beach), the American Legion California chapter and immigration restrictionist groups such as NumbersUSA, Save Our State and Coe's California Coalition for Immigration Reform.

The drive coincides with decisions in several states -- including Oklahoma, Colorado Virginia, Arizona and Georgia -- to curtail medical care, mortgage loans, homeless shelter relief and other benefits for illegal immigrants amid the national economic downturn.

Officials estimate that California's 2.7 million illegal residents account for $4 billion to $6 billion of the state's roughly $105-billion budget. Most of those costs are associated with schools, prisons and emergency healthcare.

"Are we going to continue asking taxpayers to pay for these services when the state is completely out of money?" asked Hilton, who first rallied against illegal immigration two decades ago.

Most illegal residents contribute to the state through taxes and labor, but research indicates that the costs to state and local governments outweigh the additional tax revenue, at least in the short term.

The nonpartisan state legislative analyst's office says the measure could reduce costs by more than $1 billion a year if it survives legal challenges.

Peter Schey, a Los Angeles attorney who successfully challenged Proposition 187, said courts would almost certainly strike down the measure.

"This proposal . . . has no chance of surviving a constitutional challenge," he said. "It is plainly driven by racism and a desire to whip up xenophobia during difficult economic times for U.S. citizens."

Backers say, however, that they have carefully crafted the measure to avoid the legal pitfalls that doomed Proposition 187, which would have barred illegal immigrants from receiving any public social services, education and nonemergency medical care. Voters approved it, 59% to 41%, but a federal judge ruled that the measure unconstitutionally usurped federal jurisdiction over immigration.

This time, backers worked with attorneys who have helped craft successful efforts to curtail benefits in other states.

The new measure does not claim any state authority to regulate immigration, said Mike Hethmon, an attorney with the Washington-based Immigration Reform Law Institute who advised the initiative's authors. Instead, he said, it is based on federal authority delegated to the states to restrict access to benefits and verify applicants' eligibility.

Under the 1996 federal welfare reform law, illegal residents are barred from welfare, public housing, food assistance, unemployment aid and other federal benefits. California laws, however, allow illegal residents to receive some state and local benefits, including nonemergency medical care.

The initiative would require all applicants for public benefits to verify their legal status. And unlike Proposition 187, it would not attempt to curtail access to education.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1982 that states could not bar illegal immigrant children from schools.

The measure's most controversial provisions would take aim at the U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. It would end state welfare to an estimated 48,000 households and 100,000 children, aid that now costs the state $640 million a year.

Currently, children of illegal immigrants can receive CalWorks benefits if their parents are poor enough to qualify for welfare. About 42% of child only" cases in the CalWorks program involve illegal-immigrant parents, state officials say.

The measure would also cut off CalWorks payments to the children of citizens or legal residents who fail to meet eligibility requirements for state aid because they are unwilling to work, addicted to drugs or absent, among other reasons.

The initiative would require that applicants for birth certificates verify their legal status.

Those who could not would have to present official identification from a foreign government, a record of any publicly funded costs for delivering the child and other information before receiving their child's birth certificate, which would be marked with the notation "foreign parent."

The records would be sent to Homeland Security officials.

Kristina Campbell, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund in Los Angeles, said that provision is legally vulnerable. "You can't deny a U.S. citizen child a birth certificate," she said.

"They are entitled to equal protection of the law."

The views were different at Camp Vigilance, where many of the 300 people gathered for a Fourth of July program on illegal immigration flocked to sign the petition.

"Coming here in violation of our laws is an act of disrespect," said Tony Dolz, a native Cuban and campaign volunteer. "Those who break our laws should not benefit from it."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


FINALLY, an attempt to end the "anchor-baby" welfare program in Kahleeforneeya.

I know lots of liberals claim that the illegal immigrants aren't able to collect government handouts, but it's just untrue. While the illegal individual may not be eligible, if they have children born in the USA, those children ARE eligible...and make the parents eligible for welfare, food stamps, the CalWorks program, and much more. The cost to the state and local governments is immense, and is NOT outweighed by the taxes the illegals pay.

I believe this ballot initiative will go down in flames even if it's passed. The Federal courts will never let it stand. "We the People" passed Prop 187 in the early 90's...a measure to cut off all government funded services to illegals...and the Federal courts over-ruled us on that one too.

Children of illegal immigrants should NOT automatically be granted US citizenship. That priviledge should be reserved for the children of US citizens, and LEGAL immigrants who request citizenship for their children born here.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
+1, but as you said it will never stand up in court. Courts seem to be making the law today, not the people.
 

themusgrat

Golden Member
Nov 2, 2005
1,408
0
0
Agreed, too many pansies in government for it to last, but it really needs to happen. I did like the "invasion by birth canal" quote :)
 

ayabe

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2005
7,449
0
0
Originally posted by: dphantom
+1, but as you said it will never stand up in court. Courts seem to be making the law today, not the people.

Except that it won't stand in court because of current law, not because some "acturvest juddggee" says so.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,803
6,518
126
Originally posted by: dphantom
+1, but as you said it will never stand up in court. Courts seem to be making the law today, not the people.

You mean like they overthrew Prop 8?
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
And I thought the kali ballot amendment process was all bad. :)



As for this particular case, I think their methodology on declaring "anchor babies" as non-citizens is sketchy at best.

However, and this is the big one that gets skipped over cases like this, the "anchor baby" is only an anchor so far as the locality allows them to be. The child has the right to remain but INS will have absolutely nothing prohibiting them from rounding up the remaining family members for that one way trip.

End this complacency with allowing illegals to reside in the country and the anchor baby phenomenon will be nothing but a footnote to the story.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,578
8,637
136
I think you?ll find there are more illegals in CA than people who will vote for this measure.

They out number you, so you need to beware the path you tread. They have basic needs regardless of whether the state provides for them, or whether they violently provide for themselves. What I am saying is you have three choices:

1: Forcibly remove illegals from our land.
2: Lift them up into equality with the average citizen.
3: Beat them down into a subclass where poverty and violence reign.

This nation may be gutless on the first choice, but we are also very unhappy with the second choice. Leaving things stand at #3, which this sort of law would enforce, is a horrible decision. It is akin to slavery in the sense that it will have a violent resolution and it will be fought among our homes with the price paid by the blood of our families.

You need to understand, that our birthrate is stagnant. ALL the population growth in this nation is NOT from citizens. ALL of it is from immigration, illegals included. The next additional 100 million people in this nation do not currently live in or are citizens of this nation today. That is a tremendous amount of poverty and violence to foster among our homes. Beware the path you thread.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
73,803
6,518
126
So I guess we thought we could kill all those Indians and take their land and have them never come back. A genocidal nation issues paper that says who is a citizen and the little turds with paper aren't thankful their fruit gets picked cheap.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
So I guess we thought we could kill all those Indians and take their land and have them never come back. A genocidal nation issues paper that says who is a citizen and the little turds with paper aren't thankful their fruit gets picked cheap.

Moonbeam.txt
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
the legal position referenced in the article for the attempted skirt around the 14th amendment is seriously deficient.
 

dphantom

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2005
4,763
327
126
Originally posted by: jonks
the legal position referenced in the article for the attempted skirt around the 14th amendment is seriously deficient.

The original intent:

Section 1 also includes a formal definition of citizenship. During the original debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan?the author of the citizenship clause?described the clause as excluding not only "Indians", but also ?persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.?[3] Howard also stated the word "jurisdiction" meant the United States possessed a ?full and complete jurisdiction? over the person described in the amendment.[4] Such meaning precluded citizenship to any person who was beholden, in even the slightest respect, to any sovereignty other than a U.S. state or the federal government.[4][5]

I assert we should adhere to the intent of the Amendment.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Until the law is changed, and like or not, that parents may not be US citizens, but because the children were born inside of the USA, they are full US citizens. And thus hold the same rights of all other US citizens.

The last set of politicians in California that tried the same types stunts under republirat Pete Brown, lost California to the democrats for the foreseeable future.

If we want to reduce the number of illegal immigrants having kids in the USA, stop them before they cross the border. But can't do that, we need their labor and willingness to work cheap too badly to get serious about that.
 

Nik

Lifer
Jun 5, 2006
16,101
2
56
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Until the law is changed, and like or not, that parents may not be US citizens, but because the children were born inside of the USA, they are full US citizens. And thus hold the same rights of all other US citizens.

Are we paying attention?

In that situation, the parents need to be deported anyway. The kids get flung into the social system where tax payers get to pay for their upbringing.

The solution is simple.

Amend the tax code to remove the ability for employers to claim wages as a tax deduction for any employee who cannot prove they are legal citizens. Boom, fixed. That $30,000/yr or whatever you're paying those 10 guys turns into profit that you get taxed on. Businesses kick out illegal workers and they stop coming here.

When the INS comes through and removes 100 workers from a factory and deports them, there are legal residents lined up at the factory the next day willing to work so don't give me that "who's going to do the job" garbage.

When that happens, the cost of health care drops dramatically, cost of education drops, and it snowballs into a stable economy (and cleaner neighborhoods, etc).

Woot.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: dphantom
Originally posted by: jonks
the legal position referenced in the article for the attempted skirt around the 14th amendment is seriously deficient.

The original intent:

Section 1 also includes a formal definition of citizenship. During the original debate over the amendment, Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan?the author of the citizenship clause?described the clause as excluding not only "Indians", but also ?persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.?[3] Howard also stated the word "jurisdiction" meant the United States possessed a ?full and complete jurisdiction? over the person described in the amendment.[4] Such meaning precluded citizenship to any person who was beholden, in even the slightest respect, to any sovereignty other than a U.S. state or the federal government.[4][5]

I assert we should adhere to the intent of the Amendment.

Do you so assert for every constitutional clause or only those whose original intent you agree with?

(red warning lights should be flashing in your head right now)

What if that was the intent of the original drafter, but everyone else who voted to approve the clause intended that anyone born here regardless of parental nationality be a citizen? It's a bottomless well.

Oh, lookie here, you omitted a sentence from you cut&paste:

"Other senators, including Senator John Conness,[6] supported the amendment, believing citizenship ought to be extended to children of foreigners." Doh.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
Originally posted by: bl4ckfl4g
So yeah there's this thing called the Constitution.....

that needs to be changed. the 14th is a piece of shit that is being used for a reason that it was not intend it to be used.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
"Most illegal residents contribute to the state through taxes and labor, but research indicates that the costs to state and local governments outweigh the additional tax revenue, at least in the short term.

The nonpartisan state legislative analyst's office says the measure could reduce costs by more than $1 billion a year if it survives legal challenges."



Where is jpeyton with his BS about them being a + for our economy?