U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-13-2012, 01:10 PM
 
Location: St Louis, MO
4,677 posts, read 4,611,851 times
Reputation: 2966

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Unfortunately, a lot of the damage has already been done and can't be undone. By that I mean there have been far too many anchor babies already born on our soil. Even if birthright citizenship is changed it won't be retroactive. They will be able to sponsor their parents and other relatives in their homelands to be able to come here once they reach adulthood.
I wouldn't count on that. Most recent proposals have made it very clear that revocation would be retroactive at least to current living generations and possibly farther back (i.e. if you great grandparents were not born here, you become a permanent legal resident instead of a citizen).

 
Old 06-13-2012, 02:21 PM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,172,244 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by marigolds6 View Post
I wouldn't count on that. Most recent proposals have made it very clear that revocation would be retroactive at least to current living generations and possibly farther back (i.e. if you great grandparents were not born here, you become a permanent legal resident instead of a citizen).
You can provide a link to your claims of course?
 
Old 06-14-2012, 08:33 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,858,290 times
Reputation: 22174
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Unfortunately, a lot of the damage has already been done and can't be undone. By that I mean there have been far too many anchor babies already born on our soil. Even if birthright citizenship is changed it won't be retroactive. They will be able to sponsor their parents and other relatives in their homelands to be able to come here once they reach adulthood.
Yes. These illegals coming here to have babies to get on welfare - and there is no doubt that is exactly what is going on, have a much shorter generation than do Americans. In just 15 years or so the anchor babies begin giving birth and welfare becomes generational.

The American woman tends to delay starting a family for much longer, by the time a couple has finished school, obtained a job and saved up some money, they are about 30 years of age -- just about the time the immigrant is becoming a grandmother.

It's not just the absurd number of kids they have that they can never afford on their own, it's the fact that their generations are about half of ours -- and of course immigrant grandma is still having babies when the grandbabies start rolling out.
 
Old 06-14-2012, 09:55 AM
 
25,060 posts, read 22,199,236 times
Reputation: 11578
Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Yes. These illegals coming here to have babies to get on welfare - and there is no doubt that is exactly what is going on, have a much shorter generation than do Americans. In just 15 years or so the anchor babies begin giving birth and welfare becomes generational.

The American woman tends to delay starting a family for much longer, by the time a couple has finished school, obtained a job and saved up some money, they are about 30 years of age -- just about the time the immigrant is becoming a grandmother.

It's not just the absurd number of kids they have that they can never afford on their own, it's the fact that their generations are about half of ours -- and of course immigrant grandma is still having babies when the grandbabies start rolling out.
I have a novel idea. Pass a law reforming welfare benefits for new families so that only one child may qualify for benefits (excepting ones already alive) and build 2 bedroom public housing units only about 600-700 sq. ft. in size. If they have a second child after the deadline, that child will not be able to increase benefits for the family, so it will be that family's entire responsibility for that child, not the welfare office's. That's common sense reform without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. With regards to school, families starting with the Kindergarten class of 2018 will only be able to claim free or reduced school lunch for one child for the entire K-12 duration. that way, the benefits that people might need one day are still there, but it's not encouraging more breeding. It will have an effect, as there should be absolutely no reason why more than 1 kid should be claimed for benefits. Of course, this just addresses the so-called chronically poor, not the acute poor like the person who was laid off and can't get another comparable job.
 
Old 06-14-2012, 10:38 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,172,244 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
I have a novel idea. Pass a law reforming welfare benefits for new families so that only one child may qualify for benefits (excepting ones already alive) and build 2 bedroom public housing units only about 600-700 sq. ft. in size. If they have a second child after the deadline, that child will not be able to increase benefits for the family, so it will be that family's entire responsibility for that child, not the welfare office's. That's common sense reform without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. With regards to school, families starting with the Kindergarten class of 2018 will only be able to claim free or reduced school lunch for one child for the entire K-12 duration. that way, the benefits that people might need one day are still there, but it's not encouraging more breeding. It will have an effect, as there should be absolutely no reason why more than 1 kid should be claimed for benefits. Of course, this just addresses the so-called chronically poor, not the acute poor like the person who was laid off and can't get another comparable job.
Yes, that is a good idea to encourage birthing fewer babies that the taxpayer has to pay for. I think allowing only one or two dependant deductions when filing one's income taxes at the end of the year might be a good idea also.

I also think that welfare shouldn't be provided to any parents that aren't in our country legally either. The parents should be the qualifier, not their kids.
 
Old 06-14-2012, 11:01 AM
 
25,060 posts, read 22,199,236 times
Reputation: 11578
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut View Post
Yes, that is a good idea to encourage birthing fewer babies that the taxpayer has to pay for. I think allowing only one or two dependant deductions when filing one's income taxes at the end of the year might be a good idea also.

I also think that welfare shouldn't be provided to any parents that aren't in our country legally either. The parents should be the qualifier, not their kids.
Stop the benefits splurge, and the Mexican baby boom in the southwest, especially, will come crashing down back to levels that are sustainable. The problem is that our benefits are too easily abused and accessible for those that don't really need it. They certainly don't get the easy benefits in Mexico, their welfare state is much smaller than ours.
 
Old 06-15-2012, 05:39 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,858,290 times
Reputation: 22174
Quote:
Originally Posted by theunbrainwashed View Post
I have a novel idea. Pass a law reforming welfare benefits for new families so that only one child may qualify for benefits (excepting ones already alive) and build 2 bedroom public housing units only about 600-700 sq. ft. in size. If they have a second child after the deadline, that child will not be able to increase benefits for the family, so it will be that family's entire responsibility for that child, not the welfare office's. That's common sense reform without throwing the baby out with the bathwater. With regards to school, families starting with the Kindergarten class of 2018 will only be able to claim free or reduced school lunch for one child for the entire K-12 duration. that way, the benefits that people might need one day are still there, but it's not encouraging more breeding. It will have an effect, as there should be absolutely no reason why more than 1 kid should be claimed for benefits. Of course, this just addresses the so-called chronically poor, not the acute poor like the person who was laid off and can't get another comparable job.
I don't know if you listen to Piolin -- his show is geared heavily toward illegals, giving them legal advice on how to get U visas and around immigration laws but today there was a caller discussing her situation -- she's here on a tourist visa, absolutely does not want her child born in Mexico because she doesn't want him to be nothing more than an "albanil" in Zacatecas and wants her child to be born in the USA where he can have all the advantages.

I was surprised that they actually asked her about insurance which of course she did not have, she fully expected to have the birth paid for by the taxpayers here, she said the USA gives so much more and it was clear she meant the USA gives handouts after handouts, here in the USA he would be provided a college education, an easy life, a high paying job, it was clear why she wanted a baby born here. The co-host of this show mentioned his own taxes and Piolin even said "porque nos critican" (why they criticize us) --- and these are rabidly pro-illegal types. It's interesting that even they seemed a bit disgusted by her attitude.

I think that birth tourism has to be ended -- these birth tourists coming either legally with a tourist or visitor visa or illegally to give birth here so they can access the welfare handouts should not get them anything but a trip back to their country and a permanent ban. They should not expect to have their maternity stays paid by the taxpayers, they should expect no reward at all. Citizenship should be given only to babies born to US citizens or permanent residents -- but no welfare to them.
 
Old 06-15-2012, 08:19 AM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,342,384 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by marigolds6 View Post
I wouldn't count on that. Most recent proposals have made it very clear that revocation would be retroactive at least to current living generations and possibly farther back (i.e. if you great grandparents were not born here, you become a permanent legal resident instead of a citizen).
Ok. That I don't believe. A person has 8 g grandparents; 2 were't US citizens but the 6 others were, the g grandchild IS am American.

I think when birthright is cut off; people over an age would remain US citizens. Age 18 maybe?
 
Old 06-15-2012, 08:50 AM
 
14,307 posts, read 11,172,244 times
Reputation: 2130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
Ok. That I don't believe. A person has 8 g grandparents; 2 were't US citizens but the 6 others were, the g grandchild IS am American.

I think when birthright is cut off; people over an age would remain US citizens. Age 18 maybe?
I asked this poster to provide proof that the denial of birthright citizenship to children born here of illegal aliens would be retroactive and they haven't come back since. I have never read in any of these proposed bills that it would be retroactive. There is no way that is going to happen even though ideally I wish it were.
 
Old 06-15-2012, 09:00 AM
 
47,576 posts, read 58,858,290 times
Reputation: 22174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Packard fan View Post
Ok. That I don't believe. A person has 8 g grandparents; 2 were't US citizens but the 6 others were, the g grandchild IS am American.

I think when birthright is cut off; people over an age would remain US citizens. Age 18 maybe?
Maybe -- but no way should they be allowed to sponsor their relatives. And no way should their illegal family members be allowed to remain here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top