sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Aug 22, 2015 16:28:08 GMT -5
penalties for those found employing illegals to include jail time with minimum sentences.
M aybe a minimum sentence for the first offence ...... then it goes up exponentially. I also think Sheriff Joe's tent city would be an excellent place for them to reside in AZ. Other states have their own illegal immigration problem and they can copy Sheriff Joe. The northern states in winter could get interesting. I know we can't deport all that we have illegally in the US now but we can and should deport all those caught breaking another law. Including traffic violations. If they choose to disobey the law ............ the next stop is a plane headed for Mexico City no matter where you are from originally. Profiling would become rampant and everyone would have to carry documentation. Most adults do anyway ........... it's called a drivers license.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 23, 2015 3:17:45 GMT -5
When you bite the hand that feeds you somebody needs to put you in your place! I had no intention of it, up to that point all was peachy for me, for us, all the litle snide remarks that they were making I chucked them to ignorance or stupidity. But when they started making rude remarks and inappropriate comments at the address of my family and generally to Americans you damn right I went there! Also I mentioned to them that I am not an American born and raised, I just became one and I'm proud of it! Did they respond by telling you that Americans HELPED the Nazis in their poisonous regime? From Hearst to Dow Chemical, from Ford to Alcoa, from GM to Chase Manhattan....they were all more than happy to give the Nazis a leg up and spread their venom. Then they come riding in on a white horse and claim to save the day.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Aug 23, 2015 6:46:28 GMT -5
No, they did not weltsmertz, but I don't think they wanted to continue the discussion when they realized that I wasn't the only one upset about their behavior. And to be honest, I don't think that the actions that you mentioned as being perpetrated by American companies in the help of the nazi machine was part of their knowledge about what happened. However if you are so willing and knowledgable about this unlike them, you could stop at the hotel in Versailles and educate their staff as to have an answer ready for the next time another offended American brings that up.
Was it right what I said to them? Don't think so but them using a language that they thought nobody would understand with the sole purpose of calling people names because they were tired and frustrated is not an excuse for them either. Acording to you I should've just stand there and say nothing! How is that right? I know one thing: if you can't take it, don't dish it!
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Aug 23, 2015 14:25:08 GMT -5
Just to add an additional 2¢ worth.
The amendment about natural born citizens and 'anchor babies'. My suggestion is the KISS method, keep it short and sweet. ...............
Any baby born has the same legal status as the birth mother.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 4:28:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2015 18:44:57 GMT -5
Just to add an additional 2¢ worth. The amendment about natural born citizens and 'anchor babies'. My suggestion is the KISS method, keep it short and sweet. ............... Any baby born has the same legal status as the birth mother. Add the following, and I'd agree with you: "OR biological father (as proven by DNA test)."
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Aug 24, 2015 12:46:16 GMT -5
There is an international law that touches on the issue of traveling/relocating etc. Any child born at sea or in the air(before traveling for later than third trimester was prohibited) has the citizenship of the parents and as a second choice is the citizenship of the country under who's flag the ship/airplane is registered. Also, pretty much any country typically gives you automatic citizenship if one is born on its territories.
My point is that why in the world would we try to do that- take citizenship away from one that has an inherent right to it? Is it so some politician can score a few points by cashing into misinformation and ignorance?
While on the U.S. land, one has to abide by U.S. Laws. It is in the Constitution that is their right to citizenship if born on US land. Understand the fact that the Constitutional amendments can be interpreted by the SCOTUS and not any jack of all trades- read Mark Levin!
An amendment to the Constitution is necessary only if said amendment causes harm to US. There is no research showing that babies cause harm to a country. Or maybe I don't know of it so if any of you knows where to find it, can you point me in the right direction?
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 24, 2015 12:48:53 GMT -5
Well, the babies can stay, their parents have to go. You happier with that solution?
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Aug 24, 2015 12:57:45 GMT -5
And who will raise those babies? We we have plenty of parents that neglect the ones that they have, a Congress that tirelessly works on slashing funding for outfits/organizations that provide any help to mothers with new born babies, to the educational system, to the poor and disabled, we are a total disgrace when it comes to taking care of those that fought for this country and you are telling me that we can take care of some extra babies? I'd be of the opinion that we send the parents and the baby back home but at the age of 18 that child can come here as a citizen, no questions asked ( except a criminal background check )
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 24, 2015 13:11:34 GMT -5
Nuts, there's more people wanting to adopt than there are babies for them. Problem solved.
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Aug 24, 2015 13:12:07 GMT -5
There is an international law that touches on the issue of traveling/relocating etc. Any child born at sea or in the air(before traveling for later than third trimester was prohibited) has the citizenship of the parents and as a second choice is the citizenship of the country under who's flag the ship/airplane is registered. Also, pretty much any country typically gives you automatic citizenship if one is born on its territories.
My point is that why in the world would we try to do that- take citizenship away from one that has an inherent right to it? Is it so some politician can score a few points by cashing into misinformation and ignorance? While on the U.S. land, one has to abide by U.S. Laws. It is in the Constitution that is their right to citizenship if born on US land. Understand the fact that the Constitutional amendments can be interpreted by the SCOTUS and not any jack of all trades- read Mark Levin! An amendment to the Constitution is necessary only if said amendment causes harm to US. There is no research showing that babies cause harm to a country. Or maybe I don't know of it so if any of you knows where to find it, can you point me in the right direction? Source please. It was my understanding that this was mostly true only in the North and South American continents. Most industrialized countries require one or both parents to be citizens for citizenship to be granted to children born on their soil. America and Canada are, in fact, outside the global norm in this area. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Abolition_of_jus_soliPerhaps your other assumptions are not as correct as you would like to believe as well. Although, to be honest, they're very self-serving given your circumstances. I simply don't understand how you can state the above about following US laws when you had no problem whatsoever breaking them to serve your own desires.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 24, 2015 13:19:12 GMT -5
There is an international law that touches on the issue of traveling/relocating etc. Any child born at sea or in the air(before traveling for later than third trimester was prohibited) has the citizenship of the parents and as a second choice is the citizenship of the country under who's flag the ship/airplane is registered. Also, pretty much any country typically gives you automatic citizenship if one is born on its territories.
My point is that why in the world would we try to do that- take citizenship away from one that has an inherent right to it? Is it so some politician can score a few points by cashing into misinformation and ignorance? While on the U.S. land, one has to abide by U.S. Laws. It is in the Constitution that is their right to citizenship if born on US land. Understand the fact that the Constitutional amendments can be interpreted by the SCOTUS and not any jack of all trades- read Mark Levin! An amendment to the Constitution is necessary only if said amendment causes harm to US. There is no research showing that babies cause harm to a country. Or maybe I don't know of it so if any of you knows where to find it, can you point me in the right direction? Source please. It was my understanding that this was mostly true only in the North and South American continents. Most industrialized countries require one or both parents to be citizens for citizenship to be granted to children born on their soil. America and Canada are, in fact, outside the global norm in this area. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli#Abolition_of_jus_soliPerhaps your other assumptions are not as correct as you would like to believe as well. Although, to be honest, they're very self-serving given your circumstances. I simply don't understand how you can state the above about following US laws when you had no problem whatsoever breaking them to serve your own desires. North and South America are outside the norm. virtually every country in our hemisphere uses jus soli. but yes, it is true, the old world and Asia largely do NOT.
|
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Aug 24, 2015 13:19:15 GMT -5
Nuts, t here's more people wanting blond, blue-eyed babies for them. Problem solved. fixed that for you
|
|
The Captain
Junior Associate
Hugs are good...
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 16:21:23 GMT -5
Posts: 8,717
Location: State of confusion
Favorite Drink: Whinnnne
|
Post by The Captain on Aug 24, 2015 13:33:28 GMT -5
Nuts, t here's more people wanting blond, blue-eyed babies for them. Problem solved. fixed that for you Actually not true. DH and I started the adoption process over 15 years ago and had absolutely no preference in terms of gender or race. The only way we had any chance was either going for a private adoption, or going with an open adoption (where the birth mother could still have contact with, and be involved with the child). We did our research and spoke to a few couples. You got the same "We love them and would never change our minds" spiel but at least one couple confirmed our fears about a fucked up bio-mom bouncing in and out of the kid's life and messing them up. No thanks. Everyone talks about the supposed ease of adopting minority babies, but that simply isn't the case (where I live at least).
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Aug 24, 2015 15:25:13 GMT -5
Italy grants citizenship to all born on its soil. Last I checked Italy is not North or South America There are others too but I'd have to check
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 24, 2015 15:29:56 GMT -5
Well, considering I see a lot of people with babies/children that they clearly did not give birth to, I don't agree with blonde blue eyed baby thing.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 24, 2015 15:32:16 GMT -5
Italy grants citizenship to all born on its soil. i don't believe that is true. check it.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Aug 24, 2015 15:34:23 GMT -5
And I don't get what you are saying about following US laws and such. You have me at a loss! Did I say that they should not be given citizenship? Don't believe so! If the parents are coming here illegally and they fail to acquire legal status then just because they have a child born here doesn't automatically give them citizenship. The child however has full rights. Did I say something different? So if they are removed, what are we to do with the child? Shouldn't the child be with his/her parents?
Myself, I had to prove to an immigration judge that I deserve to stay, the process wasn't just nilly willy. It took five different apearances in a court but the actual interview/crossing with prosecutor took 30 minutes. So beside illegal entry I tried my best to follow the law and abide by it.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Aug 24, 2015 15:37:07 GMT -5
In 1997 during a flight from somewhere in Asia to Europe, a baby was born. Flight carrier was Alitalia therefore the plane was Italian soil. The Italian government gave citizenship to the child since he was born on Italian soil.
Unless they changed it, that was the law in 1997 so 18 years ago. It is possible that it has changed due to new EU laws and rules.
|
|
zibazinski
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 16:12:50 GMT -5
Posts: 47,910
|
Post by zibazinski on Aug 24, 2015 15:39:35 GMT -5
Yes, I agree if the child is born here, it should be returned with the parents. At age 18, if not a public charge or a criminal, or no dependents, they can return. Not to obtain welfare of any kind or bring others into the country. But return
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 24, 2015 15:46:41 GMT -5
In 1997 during a flight from somewhere in Asia to Europe, a baby was born. Flight carrier was Alitalia therefore the plane was Italian soil. The Italian government gave citizenship to the child since he was born on Italian soil. Unless they changed it, that was the law in 1997 so 18 years ago. It is possible that it has changed due to new EU laws and rules. i think that Italy is jus sangunis. if so, it doesn't matter where it was born, so long as the parents were Italian. from Wiki: Italy: The nationality law of Italy bestows citizenship jure sanguinis. There is no limit of generations for the citizenship via blood. However, the first citizens of the modern Italian state were alive on 17 March 1861 when the state was officially formed, and for this reason all claims of Italian citizenship by jure sanguinis must stem from an ancestor who was living after 16 March 1861. Each descendant of the ancestor through whom citizenship is claimed jure sanguinis could pass Italian citizenship to the next generation only if this descendant was entitled to Italian citizenship at the time of the birth of the next person in the line. So if any person in the line lost the Italian citizenship and then had a child, that child did not inherit Italian citizen jure sanguinis, except if the child could inherit the citizenship from the other parent. Cases of dual citizenship were possible, which is to say, for example, that a person in the line could have had Italian and Canadian citizenship concurrently. Minor children of Italian citizens were at risk of losing Italian citizenship if the child's parent naturalized in another country, unless the child was subject to an exception to this risk—and children born and residing in a country where they held dual citizenship by jus soli were subject to such an exception since 1 July 1912. Until 1 January 1948, Italian law did not generally permit women to pass on citizenship. Persons born before that date are in most cases not Italian citizens jure sanguinis if their line of descent from an Italian citizen depends on a female at some point before 1948. On several occasions, this limitation of deriving Italian citizenship only from fathers before 1948 has been successfully challenged in court.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,454
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 24, 2015 16:15:04 GMT -5
In 1997 during a flight from somewhere in Asia to Europe, a baby was born. Flight carrier was Alitalia therefore the plane was Italian soil. The Italian government gave citizenship to the child since he was born on Italian soil. Unless they changed it, that was the law in 1997 so 18 years ago. It is possible that it has changed due to new EU laws and rules. i think that Italy is jus sangunis. if so, it doesn't matter where it was born, so long as the parents were Italian. from Wiki: Italy: The nationality law of Italy bestows citizenship jure sanguinis. There is no limit of generations for the citizenship via blood. However, the first citizens of the modern Italian state were alive on 17 March 1861 when the state was officially formed, and for this reason all claims of Italian citizenship by jure sanguinis must stem from an ancestor who was living after 16 March 1861. Each descendant of the ancestor through whom citizenship is claimed jure sanguinis could pass Italian citizenship to the next generation only if this descendant was entitled to Italian citizenship at the time of the birth of the next person in the line. So if any person in the line lost the Italian citizenship and then had a child, that child did not inherit Italian citizen jure sanguinis, except if the child could inherit the citizenship from the other parent. Cases of dual citizenship were possible, which is to say, for example, that a person in the line could have had Italian and Canadian citizenship concurrently. Minor children of Italian citizens were at risk of losing Italian citizenship if the child's parent naturalized in another country, unless the child was subject to an exception to this risk—and children born and residing in a country where they held dual citizenship by jus soli were subject to such an exception since 1 July 1912. Until 1 January 1948, Italian law did not generally permit women to pass on citizenship. Persons born before that date are in most cases not Italian citizens jure sanguinis if their line of descent from an Italian citizen depends on a female at some point before 1948. On several occasions, this limitation of deriving Italian citizenship only from fathers before 1948 has been successfully challenged in court. it's an interesting study to see how different countries handle and recognize (or don't) dual citizenship. for example - the US does not recognize it, period. Canada had no problem with me retaining my US birthright citizenship as I went through the process to certify my Canadian citizenship as a "citizen born abroad" as a result of the many ways one can be eligible for citizenship.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 4:28:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 17:25:25 GMT -5
i think that Italy is jus sangunis. if so, it doesn't matter where it was born, so long as the parents were Italian. from Wiki: Italy: The nationality law of Italy bestows citizenship jure sanguinis. There is no limit of generations for the citizenship via blood. However, the first citizens of the modern Italian state were alive on 17 March 1861 when the state was officially formed, and for this reason all claims of Italian citizenship by jure sanguinis must stem from an ancestor who was living after 16 March 1861. Each descendant of the ancestor through whom citizenship is claimed jure sanguinis could pass Italian citizenship to the next generation only if this descendant was entitled to Italian citizenship at the time of the birth of the next person in the line. So if any person in the line lost the Italian citizenship and then had a child, that child did not inherit Italian citizen jure sanguinis, except if the child could inherit the citizenship from the other parent. Cases of dual citizenship were possible, which is to say, for example, that a person in the line could have had Italian and Canadian citizenship concurrently. Minor children of Italian citizens were at risk of losing Italian citizenship if the child's parent naturalized in another country, unless the child was subject to an exception to this risk—and children born and residing in a country where they held dual citizenship by jus soli were subject to such an exception since 1 July 1912. Until 1 January 1948, Italian law did not generally permit women to pass on citizenship. Persons born before that date are in most cases not Italian citizens jure sanguinis if their line of descent from an Italian citizen depends on a female at some point before 1948. On several occasions, this limitation of deriving Italian citizenship only from fathers before 1948 has been successfully challenged in court. it's an interesting study to see how different countries handle and recognize (or don't) dual citizenship. for example - the US does not recognize it, period. Canada had no problem with me retaining my US birthright citizenship as I went through the process to certify my Canadian citizenship as a "citizen born abroad" as a result of the many ways one can be eligible for citizenship. You may want to update that information. According to the US State Department:
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,454
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 24, 2015 17:36:00 GMT -5
it's an interesting study to see how different countries handle and recognize (or don't) dual citizenship. for example - the US does not recognize it, period. Canada had no problem with me retaining my US birthright citizenship as I went through the process to certify my Canadian citizenship as a "citizen born abroad" as a result of the many ways one can be eligible for citizenship. You may want to update that information. According to the US State Department: no need. see what I bolded in your own quote. in my own particular case, because I was automatically eligible for citizenship, I wasn't applying for it. I just had to certify it. I had a few conversations with USCIS before I initiated that process, because I wasn't sure if I would have to renounce my US in order to certify the Canadian. as far as the US is concerned, I am a US citizen. that's all they need or want to know.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 4:28:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2015 17:39:45 GMT -5
You may want to update that information. According to the US State Department: no need. see what I bolded in your own quote. in my own particular case, because I was automatically eligible for citizenship, I wasn't applying for it. I just had to certify it. I had a few conversations with USCIS before I initiated that process, because I wasn't sure if I would have to renounce my US in order to certify the Canadian. as far as the US is concerned, I am a US citizen. that's all they need or want to know. See... I took you saying "the US does not recognize it, period." as meaning that you thought the US does not recognize it. Period. Silly me. ETA: for me there's a difference between "doesn't recognize it" and "doesn't care about it".
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,454
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 24, 2015 17:43:45 GMT -5
no need. see what I bolded in your own quote. in my own particular case, because I was automatically eligible for citizenship, I wasn't applying for it. I just had to certify it. I had a few conversations with USCIS before I initiated that process, because I wasn't sure if I would have to renounce my US in order to certify the Canadian. as far as the US is concerned, I am a US citizen. that's all they need or want to know. See... I took you saying "the US does not recognize it, period." as meaning that you thought the US does not recognize it. Period. Silly me. ETA: for me there's a difference between "doesn't recognize it" and "doesn't care about it". thanks for the edit. was about to say that the two are essentially the same. the US does not recognize my Canadian citizenship. I am not allowed to present to US Customs anything other than my US passport. in any case, that's been my experiences. others may have different stories to share.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Aug 24, 2015 18:39:17 GMT -5
I have dual citizenship. Never heard of "dual nationality". Didnt have to relinquish my Romanian citizenship in order to obtain the U.S. one.
US laws allow an individual to have dual citizenship but there are countries that allow more than that. South Africa, New Zeeland and Australia allow three.
There are also countries that once you get their citizenship, they will not recognize any other- Ukraine is one- but still not ask you officially to renounce your former citizenship.
|
|
mroped
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 17, 2014 17:36:56 GMT -5
Posts: 3,453
|
Post by mroped on Aug 24, 2015 18:57:56 GMT -5
Greece, Italy, Portugal would give citizenship to a new born if at the time of birth his parents hold no nationality/citizenship to any country meaning that they renounced their country of origin citizenship. The trick is that even under those circumstances the parents have to had lived in the country for a number of years with a legall status but not necessarily citizenship.
It is generally jus sanguinis but there are exceptions. Not as many as in U.S. case!
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 39,454
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 24, 2015 23:24:06 GMT -5
I have dual citizenship. Never heard of "dual nationality". Didnt have to relinquish my Romanian citizenship in order to obtain the U.S. one. US laws allow an individual to have dual citizenship but there are countries that allow more than that. South Africa, New Zeeland and Australia allow three. There are also countries that once you get their citizenship, they will not recognize any other- Ukraine is one- but still not ask you officially to renounce your former citizenship. had my mom's dad been born in Ireland, instead of being the first in his family born on US soil, I could also hold Irish citizenship and an EU passport. the reason I quote this post is that the US doesn't really GAF what else you might have, but the US doesn't acknowledge anything other than US. ETA: further thoughts. if you would have had to relinquish your Romanian citizenship, that's on Romania, not the US. sent from my electronic distraction
|
|
sesfw
Junior Associate
Today is the first day of the rest of my life
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 15:45:17 GMT -5
Posts: 6,268
|
Post by sesfw on Aug 25, 2015 12:21:40 GMT -5
Add the following, and I'd agree with you: "OR biological father (as proven by DNA test)."
Really don't want to add the DNA testing as that is after the birth and who knows where daddy is to get a sample. Make it just the mother's legal status and women are discouraged from making the dangerous trip while pg, or having a lot of babies while here.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Sept 30, 2024 4:28:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2015 15:53:13 GMT -5
The father would have to come into the hospital the baby is delivered at to provide one. The state isn't going to track him down. I'd limit it to a short window after birth too. No trying to find the father 10 years later to do the DNA test and issue citizenship. If the father is present at birth, or within 48-72 hours of same, he can provide a DNA sample to prove the kid is his and get the kid citizenship if the father has it. Otherwise the kid gets the same US citizenship/immigration status as the mother. Easy. Simple. Doesn't require the state to do anything, other than perform a DNA paternity test if requested by the father, who has to come into the hospital to provide the sample. It would also mean that any woman or couple giving birth would have to prove their citizenship status at that time. If you jump the fence to have your baby here because you don't trust Mexican hospitals the staff will ask for your citizenship info, and in my opinion, should call ICE if you can't provide anything showing you're in the country legally. I have no problem with any government funded agency asking for citizenship status though. Registering for public school, interacting with the police and fire department, any welfare office, DMV, whatever. If you go to any publicly funded institution to get services they should verify your immigration status and alert ICE if you can't prove you're here legally in some fashion. How do you enforce that fairly? Do we all have to carry around our birth certificate just in case we have to go to the ER or get stopped by the police for a traffic infraction? It would be easier if we had to prove citizenship to get a driver's license since most people use that for ID, but I seem to recall a lot of hoopla because proof of citizenship wasn't required in some states to get a DL. I don't remember what happened with that though.
|
|