Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
peejay

8% of U.S. babies are from illegal immigrants, survey says

16 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: Country: Belarus
Timeline

August 11, 2010

Report: 340,000 babies born to illegal immigrants in '08

An estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were the offspring of illegal immigrants, according to a new report.

An analysis by the Pew Hispanic Center, based on U.S. Census Bureau data, show that illegal immigrants comprise slightly more than 4 percent of the adult population of the U.S., but because they are relatively young and have high birthrates, their children make up a much larger share of both the newborn population (8 percent) and the child population (7 percent of those under age 18) in this country.

Pew estimates that nearly four-in-five (79 percent) of the 5.1 million children (younger than age 18) of illegal immigrants were born in this country and therefore are U.S. citizens. In total, 4 million U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents resided in this country in 2009, alongside 1.1 million foreign-born children of unauthorized immigrant parents.

The Pew researchers noted they were not addressing the merits of the birthright citizenship debate, which has becoming an increasingly hot issue in recent weeks. A nationwide survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press in June found that, by 56 percent to 41 percent, the public opposes changing the 14th Amendment, which grants an automatic right to citizenship to anyone born in the U.S.

The Atlantic Wire has an interesting post today on how ending birthright citizenship would change immigration. A Washington Post columnist thinks Republicans are tackling the issue out of fear of Latino voting power. But some supporters of a review of the 14th Amendment say something has to be done about "birth tourism," when non-citizens come to the U.S. just to have babies.

Here's a excerpt of a report from Anderson Cooper's blog:

How common is "birth tourism?" Apparently, quite common. In the year Hector was born in Fort Worth, Texas, the state reported at least 60,000 births to undocumented mothers. And amazingly, in the public hospital where Hector was born, officials tell us they estimate 70 percent of their births are to undocumented mothers. Not all those mothers come to the U.S. specifically to have their children; but all the children have something in common. They are all U.S. citizens.

http://blogs.chron.com/immigration/archives/2010/08/report_340000_b_1.html


"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
An estimated 340,000 of the 4.3 million babies born in the United States in 2008 were the offspring of illegal immigrants, according to a new report.

Is that all? Gee, I thought it was a serious problem. :unsure:

Edited by ##########

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

The birth of our daughter ran up a grand total of appr. $35,000.00 - prenatal care, c-section delivery and all. Other than the breach position (hence, the c-section), there were no complications with the pregnancy and birth. 35 grand nonetheless. Multiplied by 340,000, you're talking about 12 billion dollars - a year. And then the WIC, child care subsidies and all that ####### kicks in for the next 18 years. Lovely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Belarus
Timeline

Is that all? Gee, I thought it was a serious problem. :unsure:

I guess when it hits 25% then maybe the gummit will extricate its cranium from its #######. But I ain't holdin' my breath cuz I might turn blue and die before the idiots running the country emerge from the darkness to see the light. They are still in the denial phase.

problem%20is%20obvious.jpg


"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The birth of our daughter ran up a grand total of appr. $35,000.00 - prenatal care, c-section delivery and all. Other than the breach position (hence, the c-section), there were no complications with the pregnancy and birth. 35 grand nonetheless. Multiplied by 340,000, you're talking about 12 billion dollars - a year. And then the WIC, child care subsidies and all that ####### kicks in for the next 18 years. Lovely.

Guess who is paying for all this? Uncle Peejay, Bog Dog and booyah.

Why stop there with the calculations. Lets factor the cost of educating one year of anchor-babies:

A. Anchor-babies born per year = 340,000

B. District Cost to educate a child per year= $8K average

C. Minimum school years = 12

A * B * C = $32.6 billion

Should this money not be saved or invested on American children? Who do people think is paying for this?

Now multiple that by three, five or ten years worth.


According to the Internal Revenue Service, the 400 richest American households earned a total of $US138 billion, up from $US105 billion a year earlier. That's an average of $US345 million each, on which they paid a tax rate of just 16.6 per cent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Belarus
Timeline

Guess who is paying for all this? Uncle Peejay, Bog Dog and booyah.

Why stop there with the calculations. Lets factor the cost of educating one year of anchor-babies:

A. Anchor-babies born per year = 340,000

B. District Cost to educate a child per year= $8K average

C. Minimum school years = 12

A * B * C = $32.6 billion

Should this money not be saved or invested on American children? Who do people think is paying for this?

Now multiple that by three, five or ten years worth.

Meanwhile their parents pay no US income taxes, collect multiple social services through their children, and send the savings back to Mexico and other Latin American countries to the tune of billions yearly as remittances.

These countries dump their poverty and unemployment on the USA to deal with and then get rewarded for doing it. And meanwhile the usual idiots here in the USA think this is a swell deal even they they are depriving their own people while paying for this lunacy. I still haven't figured out if they are stupid, are clueless, are goofy do-gooders, suffer from inner feelings of guilt, or just don't give a sh*t.

We already know why business types and corrupt politicians are on board. Cheap labor and cheap votes. It's the other idiots I don't get.

Edited by peejay

"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile their parents pay no taxes, collect multiple social services through their children, and send the savings back to Mexico and other Latin American countries to the tune of billions yearly as remittances.

These countries dump their poverty and unemployment on the USA to deal with and then get rewarded for doing it. And meanwhile the usual idiots here in the USA think this is a swell deal. I still haven't figured out if they are stupid, are clueless, are goofy do-gooders, suffer from inner feelings of guilt, or just don't give a sh*t.

We already know why business types and corrupt politicians are on board. Cheap labor and cheap votes. It's the other idiots I don't get.

Preeach...

The US has become a dumping ground for these countries. In fact, the Mexican government even published a guide, assisting people get here.


According to the Internal Revenue Service, the 400 richest American households earned a total of $US138 billion, up from $US105 billion a year earlier. That's an average of $US345 million each, on which they paid a tax rate of just 16.6 per cent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: England
Timeline

So what would you patriots do to these tiny US Citizens ?

Legal US Citizens per the Constitution that is so to be worshipped ?

Try not to use the phrase 'final solution'


moresheep400100.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline
So what would you patriots do to these tiny US Citizens ?

Legal US Citizens per the Constitution that is so to be worshipped ?

Try not to use the phrase 'final solution'

You see nothing wrong with this picture? You don't think that a more sensible solution can be found and crafted? I don't have all the answers and the country won't have all the answers unless we're having a debate on what does and what doesn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Belarus
Timeline

You see nothing wrong with this picture? You don't think that a more sensible solution can be found and crafted? I don't have all the answers and the country won't have all the answers unless we're having a debate on what does and what doesn't work.

Any debate is held hostage to the #1 priority of the the Democratic political commissars...Mass Blanket Illegal Alien Amnesty with a path to citizenship and eventual voting privileges. Also sold under guise as "comprehensive immigration reform".

Feingold nixes GOP request for hearings into 14th amendment

Republicans may be calling for hearings into revising the 14th amendment, which guarantees citizenship to children of illegal immigrants, but it looks like they're not going to get 'em.

Russ Feingold, who chairs the Constitution Subcommittee, which would conduct the hearings, has "no plans" to allow them to go forward, his spokesman confirms to me.

And Feingold, in a statement, is reiterating that Federal immigration reform, not amending the Constitution, is the solution:

"We can and should address the problem of illegal immigration head-on without amending the Constitution. The way to do that is to pass bipartisan comprehensive legislation improving border security, protecting American jobs and addressing those currently in the country illegally. It is past time for Congress to resume the bipartisan effort that was started by President Bush and enact meaningful federal immigration reform."

Right now, the list of Republicans supporting hearings into whether to repeal birthright citizenship includes Chuck Grassley, Jon Kyl, and Lindsey Graham, who has hinted at a Constitutional amendment. Mitch McConnell and John McCain also seem supportive of hearings, though their backing is ambiguous.

Does Feingold's opposition mean no hearings on the issue? Unclear. The Constitution Subcommittee appears to be the first stop for efforts to amend the Constitution, But in theory, Senator Patrick Leahy, as chair of the overarching Judiciary Committee, could decide to go forward, despite Feingold's opposition. That seems unlikely, however.

More broadly, other Senate subcommittees, such as the one on immigration, could hold hearings on the issue itself, if not on whether to change the Constitution.

But it's looking less and less likely that any Constitutional tweaks are on the table. Conservative defenders of the Constitution will no doubt be deeply relieved! Oh, wait...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/08/feingold_nixes_gop_request_for.html


"Credibility in immigration policy can be summed up in one sentence: Those who should get in, get in; those who should be kept out, are kept out; and those who should not be here will be required to leave."

"...for the system to be credible, people actually have to be deported at the end of the process."

US Congresswoman Barbara Jordan (D-TX)

Testimony to the House Immigration Subcommittee, February 24, 1995

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline

14th Amendment: Is birthright citizenship really in the Constitution?

Washington – Is “birthright citizenship” – the policy of granting US citizenship to every child born on national soil – really enshrined in the US Constitution? Some experts believe it isn’t.

Congress, they say, could regulate who qualifies for birthright citizenship via legislation, within limits. Lawmakers might deny it to children born in the US to illegal immigrants, for example.

This could be an important legal distinction. Circumscribing birthright citizenship with a bill would be very difficult, particularly while President Obama remains in office. But doing the same thing via the direct route of amending the Constitution would be virtually impossible.

“We do not need to amend the Constitution to end birthright citizenship,” said Rep. Lamar Smith ® of Texas in a statement issued Tuesday.

Birthright citizenship is a hot topic in Washington nowadays because some congressional Republicans have become increasingly vocal about a desire to deny such status to the children of parents who are residing in the US illegally. The GOP leaders of both the House and Senate have said they favor holding hearings on the issue, at the least.

Many legal scholars believe that changing the policy would require changing the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, on which birthright citizenship is based. But “many” legal scholars is not the same thing as “all.”

Section 1 of the 14th Amendment begins this way: “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.â€

The key phrase here is “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,â€

Illegal immigrants are not subject to US jurisdiction, in the sense that they cannot be drafted into the US military or tried for treason against the US, said John Eastman, a professor at the Chapman University School of Law, in a media conference call Monday. Their children would share that status, via citizenship in their parents’ nation or nations of birth – and so would not be eligible for a US passport, even if born on US soil, according to Dr. Eastman.

Furthermore, federal courts have upheld the right of Congress to regulate naturalization policies over and above the basic constitutional guarantee, according to Eastman. Taken together, he says, all this means lawmakers, if they choose, could deny birthright citizenship to the children of parents here illegally.

“The 14th Amendment is a floor, but how far above that floor we go is a matter of basic policy judgment that our Constitution assigns exclusively to the Congress of the United States,â€

Perhaps the defining Supreme Court ruling in this area is US v. Wong Kim Ark, an 1898 case in which justices upheld the US citizenship of a child born on US soil to Chinese immigrant parents. The parents were in the US legally, however.

“The courts apparently have never ruled on the specific [issue] of whether the native-born child of illegal aliens as opposed to the child of lawfully present aliens may be a US citizen,” concludes a 2005 Congressional Research Service report on birthright citizenship.

Defenders of the current US interpretation of birthright citizenship say that a century of legal precedents supports their view that it is defined by the Constitution itself and is beyond the reach of congressional reinterpretation.

The wording of the 14th Amendment means what it says, they say. The “subject to the jurisdiction” phrase today excludes the children of diplomats, who are immune from most US civil and criminal laws by treaty.

“Those who want to read it narrowly ... are simply wrong,” said Elizabeth Wydra, chief counsel of the Constitutional Accountability Center, in a recent conference call.

link


* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: England
Timeline

The more I look at written constitutions, there more convinced I am that the US is being held back and can only be more and more out of date.

Seems that in many people's minds there is a correlation between the constitution and the tablets of stone in the bible. Something 'holy' about it.

These founding fathers were just people like you and me and they lived in a different time.

Look at the rules for changing the Constitution - it's amazing there aren't still witch burnings, public executions, flogging etc. (nearly said water boarding)

Virtually every other country has solved the problem and tourist citizens don't exist there - so how come the US can't do it ? It's this millstone round everyone's necks called the Constitution

We need an amendment killing all amendments to the constitution and substituting a modern framework of laws that can be changed to suit the ever evolving world

Everybody else has....

Here we are picking over some archaic language from 1787 and wondering what they were on about - crazy

Edited by saywhat

moresheep400100.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Brazil
Timeline

The more I look at written constitutions, there more convinced I am that the US is being held back and can only be more and more out of date.

Seems that in many people's minds there is a correlation between the constitution and the tablets of stone in the bible. Something 'holy' about it.

These founding fathers were just people like you and me and they lived in a different time.

Look at the rules for changing the Constitution - it's amazing there aren't still witch burnings, public executions, flogging etc. (nearly said water boarding)

Virtually every other country has solved the problem and tourist citizens don't exist there - so how come the US can't do it ? It's this millstone round everyone's necks called the Constitution

We need an amendment killing all amendments to the constitution and substituting a modern framework of laws that can be changed to suit the ever evolving world

Everybody else has....

Here we are picking over some archaic language from 1787 and wondering what they were on about - crazy

angry-mob.jpeg

there's that brit that wants to change the constitution, get him!


* ~ * Charles * ~ *
 

I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy.

 

USE THE REPORT BUTTON INSTEAD OF MESSAGING A MODERATOR!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: England
Timeline

there's that brit that wants to change the constitution, get him!

It doesn't do any good anyway - the Brits have gun carry rights in their 'constitution' of 1689 - the regs just go round it. This is the way it will go in the US.

So it doesn't protect, and it does slow everything up and stop evolution - oops I mean 'further creation'.

How come everyone else has free speech and they don't have a constitution ? In England it's just common law that everyone can do anything that's not forbidden by law. Now that's a great principle and all that's required..

So the Brits just pass a law to say babies of non citizens are not citizens and voilà - jobs a good un. That's what everyone does.

Even Prince Philip had to Naturalize as a Brit even though he was marrying a princess and becoming 'man belong quinn'

Edited by saywhat

moresheep400100.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What percent of the new illegal alien families are on welfare once the anchor baby is born?


"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. Government can’t pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government’s reckless fiscal policies."

Senator Barack Obama
Senate Floor Speech on Public Debt
March 16, 2006



barack-cowboy-hat.jpg
90f.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...