California might get rid of the "anchor baby" law

Dawn - posted on 09/17/2009 ( 14 moms have responded )

489

8

41

Ok saw this on another community and wanted to bring it over here. Let me know what you all think about it.



Support the California Protection Act of 2010 & stop fiscal incentives for ‘anchor babies’

Sunday, 08.02.2009, 12:03pm (GMT)





Commentary by James L. Lambert



A growing number of Californians have come to the realization that the golden state is rapidly loosing its luster. The state can no longer financially afford to pay billions of dollars in aid to illegal foreign residents and their offspring. Citizens have responded by distributing the California Protection Act of 2010, an initiative that is hoped to make the state ballot by next June.

The California Protection Act of 2010 (www.TaxpayerRevolution.org) , if enacted, will revise the way birth certificates are issued. Mothers will be required to sign an affidavit declaring their status as a legal resident alien or citizen. Tony Doltz, a candidate for Congress (30th Dist – CA.) says that if the mother refuses to sign the document, she will be required to provide a (foreign) government (photo) ID, fingerprint, legal (US) street address and a copy of her (taxpayer funded) maternity bill. The state of California will then be required to turn over the documentation to HLS (Dept. of Homeland Security).

The initiative, if enacted, will also end one child only welfare benefits. It is not unusual for the government to pay these benefits for years after birth. Additionally, this form of welfare is often paid by direct deposit to a parent’s bank account, costing California taxpayers millions of dollars each year. Regardless even under this initiative, children will still be eligible for emergency hospital care and K-12 education.

Former Los Angeles congressional candidate Ted Hayes (36th Dist.) thinks “the whole anchor baby issue is a direct affront to the black community.” He told this writer last Friday that “it is a total disregard of the original intent of the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment (sec 1) came out of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, say Hays, which gave emancipated slaves citizenship in the United States of America”. Hayes contends; “the Amendment was created for West African emancipated slaves, not illegal immigrants.” Hayes, who ran against Maxine Waters as a Republican in 2008, concluded by stating that “this has nothing to do with my skin color but everything to do with our unique experience as Americans.” (Advocates for anchor babies) “are just committing another form of identity theft on the black community.”

Ted Hayes and Tony Dolz ( www.Dolz.com ) believe the initiative, if passed, would significantly lighten the load of an already heavily taxed state. California Congressman Brian Bilbray agreed. He told the San Diego Examiner, that, “it is an urban legend that everybody born here is an automatic citizen” adding that “when international diplomats are here in the US and they have children, they are not given citizenship.”

Oklahoma and Arizona have already passed similar laws. Encourage your Californian friends and relatives to support this important ballot initiative. Advocates need as many signatures as possible so the initiative can get before the voters of California in June of 2010. A total of 600,000 signers are needed! (www.TaxpayerRevolution.org )



http://www.christianmirror.net/article/w...

This conversation has been closed to further comments

14 Comments

View replies by

[deleted account]

Did you read the section about who is eligible for the SSI program? It wouldn't be anyone who is a birth tourist. You have to have been: *lawfully* living in the U.S. on August 22, 1996, and be blind or disabled or *lawfully* have been receiving SSI on August 22, 1996, or have been *lawfully* admitted to live in the U.S. with 40 hours of work credit, be an Amerasian immigrant or a Cuban/Hatian refugee, been a member of the armed forces, or a noncitizen member of a federally recognized Native American tribe-and that's straight from the site.And again with food stamps, it's basically the same. I'm not seeing much of a problem with that part, at least. I just don't trust the website. I don't think their research is adequate, and their argument strays all over the place. If I were to turn that in as a paper-I'd fail. Nowhere do I see anything about 18 years for noncitizens. It just doesn't make sense.

Jeannette - posted on 09/19/2009

911

3

78

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/11051.html#limit

The Post Office delivers these Homeland Security packets all the time...as well as Social Security packets..to the same houses. Non citizens can get benefits for up to 7 years, however, citizens can get benefits as long as they qualify for SSI

http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/applicant_re...

Read the bottom...Immigrant eligibility

You're right, I don't know how well this article researched their info., but you can look for yourself at the elligibility of any govt income/program

http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/11051.html#part8

So, as long as these people qualify for any govt assistance, they qualify for food stamps really. I wonder if their "disability" is something they are claiming for themselves or a disability they are claiming their kids have? Because they can get SSI for a child's disability too? hmmmm....I'll have to look into that.

[deleted account]

Actually, I'm well aware of that. What I don't understand is how she could receive 18 years of that stuff if the "average American woman" could only receive 5. I'm also completely baffled that the website wonders off on tangents about teen pregnancy rates and drop out rates instead of sticking to the point at hand, which is birth tourism and anchor babies, and they do so without giving any links or citations concerning where their information came from or where to look for more. I'm not dumb-I'm questioning credibility.

Jeannette - posted on 09/18/2009

911

3

78

Diana, this article is in regards to "anchor babies", correct? If a pregnant woman walks across the border and gives birth, said child has "anchored" her right to be here. She qualifies for WIC, foodstamps, SS, her children qualify for free lunches, and Medicaid. Why do you think they have the forms in Spanish in the welfare offices? For the women who've just crossed over and don't speak or read English.
Sara, yes, change the inscription - and you don't qualify for welfare. Get a job, create a job, become involved in your community rather than take over a portion of a community and change its signs to be readable only to nonenglish speaking people. The very least they could do is put up signage with English as well.
Our country is changing - it is time for change. Here is change I can embrace because it is change FOR the American citizens well being, for once.

[deleted account]

Sorry, this thing isn't giving me notifications that people have replied.



But I don't think that can be it-or at least if it is their reasoning, it's not a very good one. Mississippi, not California, has the highest teen pregnancy and birth rates in the nation. (Not that I'm proud of the statistic...lol...But in light of it, the logic makes even less sense.)



Again-I don't know that the law itself is a bad thing, but I do know that the people who run the TaxpayerRevolution site need some lessons on how to put together an appropriate, well-reasoned and supported argument. =)

Sharon - posted on 09/18/2009

11,585

12

1314

I have no idea why teen pregnancy rates play into unless they're saying the border states rates are skewed because of the girls that come across from the border.



I'll try to find the site I used to use if you're curious.

[deleted account]

But how are they getting 18 years of aid? And what does teen pregnancy and dropout rates have to do with anything, since they aren't "birth tourists"? That just doesn't make sense. While I do agree that being born here should not mean that you're a citizen, I'm just not sure I believe everything that the group who wrote the initiative is trying to sell. They meander and don't give me any way to verify what it is they're saying.

Sara - posted on 09/18/2009

9,313

50

584

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,

With conquering limbs astride from land to land;

Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand

A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame

Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles.

From her beacon-hand

Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command

The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

“"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!"” cries she

With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,

I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”



Guess we need to change that inscription, huh?

Sharon - posted on 09/18/2009

11,585

12

1314

I agree dawn, I wrote a long reply to this, and deleted. I just don't give enough of a shit to care about fighting it. Unless you're living this crap and being pushed aside by people who aren't even citizens and watching the lifeflight helicopter fly over the border daily to pick up people to take them to american intensive care centers ... you have no idea what this hell is like.

Dawn - posted on 09/18/2009

489

8

41

In California you don't have to have proof of being here legally. They can get more benefits than you and I. If you ever go into an ER in Ca., you will find that its full of hispanics. I've been in the ER's for myself and taken friends. This anchor baby thing is why alot of women come over the border pregnant and even in some cases in labor. Just so they can stay here. I'm not sure if this law is in the other border states too.

[deleted account]

I'm confused. How are they getting welfare and WIC and other government benefits? I'm not sure that I 100% buy into what these people are saying is happening. The actual website also meanders around the point of "anchor babies," often wondering off to talk about teen pregnancy rates and graduate percentages (with poor grammar, I might add) and never gives an indication at how it arrived at a single statistic.

Sharon - posted on 09/17/2009

11,585

12

1314

The USA is the only country that does this - to the best of my knowledge. Its to our detriment. We no longer have a need to bolster our population by claiming babies born to foreign parents as our citizens.

I'm all for the change.

[deleted account]

While I agree that US citizenship shouldn't be a birthright, I simply have no idea how such a law could be Constitutional.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms