I actually had to explain to some idiot today that illegal aliens don't get welfare or MedicAid...

And the fucktard still didn't believe me, even though I am a CASE WORKER for such cases.

I tried explaining to him that illegal aliens don't get cash aid, food stamps or MediCal or MedicAid (well, emergency MediCal only, but that's just wise policy...). Now, their children, if born in the US, are citizens and WOULD get such aid.

That distinction was lost on this freeper. Apparently, the children of illegal aliens should not be citizens, therefore any aid to them constitutes aid to illegals...

<SIGH>

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

It's refusal to believe that which contradicts your warped view of the universe. It's behavior which is commonly displayed by 5 year olds, and unfortunately there's quite a few adults which never grew out of it.

but cheerfully poke their own eyes out so that they could not possibly see.

:thumbsup:

bigotry looks for all justification of it, even if justification is fabricated

:thumbsup:

bigotry looks for all justification of it, even if justification is fabricated

I'm not trying to throw a grenade here. I would like to hear the rationale behind this concept in 2009.

Therefore, federal laws and regs entitle such children to aid.

Don't like it? Write your congresscritter.

If yes, then okay, maybe such children shouldn't be considered citizens.

If no, then we have no reason whatsoever to change our current set-up.

Additionally, it makes no sense to deny medical care (especially immunizations) to children. They go to school with everyone else's kids, and could spread dangerous diseases like wildfire if we deny them medical coverage.

So, from both a practical AND moral standpoint, it just makes sense to keep it this way.

I also don't think they should automatically become citizens. I respect your position on the immunization angle, which is one of the many things which make this a difficult and nuanced issue.

Illegal immigration is one of the issues where I differ from the DU mainstream.

didnt your forefathers become american on this very basis?

I know I do.

I had one ancestor who jumped ship from the vessel he was crewing, when it docked in New York in the late 1890s.

I'm dead certain we'd find something similar in your background if we looked hard enough.

I'm not so worried about the 1890's. I'm more concerned about the current situation.

And if it's wrong now, it was wrong in the 1890s.

The cornerstone of morality is consistency. If you cannot hold yourself to the same standards you demand of others, there's a word for that: hypocrisy.

I have had this discussion probably as many times as you have. We know each other's arguments.

Your argument is built on sand.

But fine, keep thinking you're a "martyr". :eyes:

I think you are saying that you think a child should be a resident of the country from which his parents came?

So, what if the father is from China and the mother is from Scotland?

And where a child first draws birth is his country of birth. That's a fairly impressive accomplishment, getting born, and the child's reward is citizenship.

That's pretty much what our founding fathers had in mind.

You have a better idea?

I know far more about it than you do. I deal with it every day.

On the other hand, you obviously have a far different viewpoint, but have said NOTHING which supports that viewpoint.

While you are entitled to your opinion, I am entitled to point out as often, as loudly, and in as great a detail as I must, how WRONG you are.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution says a person who is born in the US is a citizen of the US. "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."

So whether anybody likes it or not, it's the law, and will remain the law unless and until that part of the Fourteenth Amendment is repealed or amended.

The wording of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not. It is absolutely clear on its face. So an opinion and a buck will buy you a cup of coffee.

:shrug:

...and since before X date there wasn't a US of A to speak of - that X date being differing dates for each of the states. I guess it was designed as a "catch all" to ensure everyone is a citizen plus to make it an easier process with all these immigrants coming to our shores legally. Also may have been a leftover from English law; if you're born in the UK at one point you did acquire automatic British citizenship if you were born on British soil (not always the case these days though IIRC) - to increase the number of people the King/Queen can tax I suppose.

Maybe the law should be changed that people born here to parents who are not US citizens are not given US citizenship through birth on US soil - unless the parents citizenship cannot be claimed by the child or the parents are both stateless. This would be a way of dramatically reducing the "anchor baby" phenomenon whilst maintaining family unity because the child would have the citizenship of the parents and be entitled to live there, with their parents. If a child was born to parents legally here in the US who both are not citizens but are here lawfully, that child should automatically be granted US National status until age 18, which would entitle that child to live and receive all the benefits of full citizenship - but be able to be converted to full citizenship should the child live here the full 18 years lawfully or one of the parents gain citizenship themselves. If the parents leave the country with that child and "go home", at age 18 the child would lose their US national status and just have his parents' citizenship.

We'd end up, in a few generations, with a disenfranchised underclass who were every bit as "American" as any of us are for starters.

I for one am not in favor of anyone dying needlessly outside the door of a hospital.

Though, I must say I agree that everyone, regardless of their status should have medical access.

After all, if you or I went to the UK and were injured, we'd be treated by the NHS...

Oh, wait...

That's precisely what we're trying to do...


And precisely what the Republicans have been blocking for decades.


Sigh

is undocumented migrant/worker. Anyway, hello, I'm new.

Seriously, I'm not hung up on the PC label. Especially when I'm doing what I can to help that community.

As you can see, there are some on DU who resent even providing basic needs for that very same comunity.

Welcome to DU, by the way.:hi:

I'll try to get back a bit later, good group here. aha, my first smilie, cheers. :toast:

And thank you for starting off as a donor!

:hi:

I know I'm probably saying something that's been said already in this thread, but I don't even bother with people like that anymore.

They're not interested in facts. They're interested in tearing down the programs. These people are easy to spot, early on in the conversation, and I just figure that since they won't accept even the most basic of facts, they're NEVER going to accept any other facts or conclusions that stem from the basics.

They'll just never do it.

they'd have to question everything Rush and Bill and Glenn said, and their whole universe would come tumbling down.