Henry: You forgot to mention discrimination against whites by apologist laws that give ANY OTHER RACE priorities in consideration for jobs, free child care, education, small business start-ups, low-income and interest housing, and many other areas.

Larry: You have a very good point. Instead, our State Welfare rules REWARD people for having more babies - having more children gains cash benefits and more. In addition, it seems to secure permanent visas for any and all foreigners who have babies on our soil, including all their relatives, whether they came here legally or not.

"In addition, it seems to secure permanent visas for any and all foreigners who have babies on our soil, including all their relatives, whether they came here legally or not."

Which, according to the Law of Nations, does not lawfully make those children any more citizens of this country than their parents. Until their citizenship is changed, the children retain the domicile of their parents... the incidental location of their birth doesn't matter. If your parents took a vacation to France and your mother birthed you there, you wouldn't be a French citizen any more than these people from south of the border are American citizens just because they sneak across the border.

It's the lawyers in our government that are knowing, willing accomplices in that farce.

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Birthright citizenship in the United States is controlled by the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states:

"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."

You will need to change the US constitution if you want to address citizenship of children born to illegal aliens. Good luck.

YakRob- clearly the constitution has a liberal bias!

As for today's letters- I agree with the letter about having children, however I have to wonder how many state supported babies are the result of poor sex education, abstinence only sex education, lack of access to birth control, lack of education about birth control, strict religious teachings against birth control and an inability for women to visit a doctor to obtain birth control due to a lack of health insurance.

Nick: Once again, things about immigration are not as they "seem."

Immigration is controlled by federal law. State welfare rules have nothing to do with who gets permanent visas. Getting permanent resident status through a relative petition is complicated. One basic rule is that a U.S. citizen has to be at least 21 years old before he or she can petition for a parent or sibling (18 for a spouse). Nobody can petition for grandparents, grandchildren, aunts, uncles, nieces, nephews, cousins, etc.

After a petition is approved, the would-be immigrant still has to be "admissible" to the United States -- unlawful presence is one of many grounds of inadmissibility for which you need a waiver, and there is no unlawful presence waiver available to parents of U.S. citizens until at least 10 years have passed since the parents left the United States. See: INA sec. 212(a)(9)(B)(v). So all of this "anchor baby" hooey is, well, hooey.

Here is a helpful chart that, although simplified, has the distinct advantage of being accurate:

http://i38.tinypic.com/2e0vl6v.jpg

YakRob,

Nice try. You missed this part, though...

"...and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."

Which illegal aliens are subject to the jurisdiction of the US Gov't, not being citizens? Or, are they subject to the Mexican gov't even though they are here?

Citizenship is a complicated area of law, and the Law of Nations clarifies our Constitution. That amendment was written for the benefit of the black slaves as they had no rights upon their emancipation (and the southern states weren't about to give them any). It had nothing to do with illegal immigrants.

"however I have to wonder how many state supported babies are the result of poor sex education, abstinence only sex education, lack of access to birth control, lack of education about birth control, strict religious teachings against birth control and an inability for women to visit a doctor to obtain birth control due to a lack of health insurance."

And yet I have to also wonder how much of this is just plain lack of morals and the breakdown of the family unit and authority of parents within the new age of children's rights? Why the explosion of pregnancies to young women in the last 20 years since in ages before there were no condoms, sex ed, etc.?

"however I have to wonder how many state supported babies are the result of poor sex education, abstinence only sex education, lack of access to birth control, lack of education about birth control, strict religious teachings against birth control and an inability for women to visit a doctor to obtain birth control due to a lack of health insurance."

How many decades have we had sex ed in schools and widely available birth control? How long are we supposed to wait before these solutions start to work?

"Why the explosion of pregnancies to young women in the last 20 years since in ages before there were no condoms, sex ed, etc.?"

Thats interesting, since the birthrate to teenage mothers was HIGHER in the 1950s than in either of the past two decades.

Are you proposing that we go back even farther? How about we jump back to a time when abortions were performed with wire coat hangers, women couldn't vote and the color of your skin dictated which drinking fountain you could use. Clearly the past was rosy and wonderful, no one got pregnant unless they wanted to and everyone had the same morals.

I wish I had as rosy a view of the past as you.

Oh, come on, Elect. If "illegal aliens" are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government then they are not subject to deportation or criminal prosecution. Is that your reality? Have fun trying to convince 'mericans that the U.S. Constitution should be clarified by international law.

"How many decades have we had sex ed in schools and widely available birth control?"

Sex Ed? Yeah right! Abstinence only sex ed is NOT sex ed. Widely available birth control? Well, considering the women I'm referring to are generally low income, it's not as widely available as you might believe. Have you ever been on a fixed low income and needed to buy birth control of some kind? I have. It is not easy, it is not cheap.

wsujc210
What about Planned Parenthood?

BevSue- many women who want to go to Planned Parenthood just to get condoms are often faced with scorn and stigma from protesters outside, who assume they are going to get an abortion. Considering the violence that the clinic has been assaulted with in other parts of the country, many women consider it dangerous to go there.

If they are going there to apply for birth control assistance they are forced to take time off of work, losing income, so they can fill out the necessary paperwork just to be denied coverage on a technicality (for me it was an expired insurance policy that covered me for part of that calendar year, but was not in effect at that time).

Martha,

"Oh, come on, Elect. If "illegal aliens" are not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. government then they are not subject to deportation or criminal prosecution. Is that your reality? Have fun trying to convince 'mericans that the U.S. Constitution should be clarified by international law."

I didn't say, "international law", the "Law of Nations" is what our founding fathers based the Constitution from. It was a recognized world standard even back then.

Ok, tell you what. Take a trip to Mexico, once there demand a Mexican driver's license and whatever amounts to welfare down there. Since you're a foreigner (even though you're on their soil) they'll blow you off. They have no jurisdiction over you (provided you don't break their laws), and they have no jurisdiction to do anything for you either... that's why we have an American Embassy in foreign countries.

Time to expand our minds and learn. I realize even rudimentary law isn't taught in our wonderful public schools. It's another thing we have to learn for ourselves.

No jurisdiction to do anything for you... and no responsibility to do anything for you either. The Constitution says 'born or naturalized... AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof'. Why do you suppose they bothered to add that bit? In law, every word has significance. Unlike places like this, of course...

About unplanned pregnancy...

Thirty-five years ago, as a Freshman at West Valley High School, we had a very good Sex Ed class (anyone remember Mr. Ekker?). I don't think abstinence was even discussed except for a sentence. "If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex, but if you do, here's how to keep from getting pregnant or catching VD." The next 3 weeks was a very intense course in human reproduction and pregnancy prevention. I don't know of any girls in my class that had a baby. Sex education works.

But it really begins in the home. Graduate high school, graduate college, get married, have kids. How many parents tell their kids since birth that this is what is to be, in that order? How many kids have parents around to even tell them this? Although not always possible, a full-time parent is the best birth control. If you know where your kid is and what he/she is doing, it does lessen (although not eliminate) the trouble they can get into.

As soon as my girls were able to understand, they knew the "facts of life." Of course, living on a farm helped that. We had sheep and they both helped, at one time or another, pull a lamb. Seeing mom elbow deep into a ewe, covered in blood and fluid, well, THAT was the ultimate lesson in birth control!

jus soli = citizenship by the place of one's birth
jus sanguinis = citizenship by descent

U.S. citizenship is a combination of the two. Jus soli is rooted in feudal England; jus sanguinis is rooted in European civil law, especially Frence.

The US accepted jus soli as part and parcel of our inherited English common law. Citizenship was automatically conferred on the native-born (whites only, initially); jus soli was codified in the 14th Amendment. The principle of jus sanguinis was first established in the US by the Act of 1790, which provided that children born abroad of US citizens who had resided in the United States "shall be considered as natural-born citizens." Every subsequent statute has precluded acquisition of US citizenship by a chld born abroad unless the citizen parent or parents have resided in the US.

(I mean, "especially France.")

What you've described also fits in with the laws of domicile, wherein the children are presumed to have the domicile (legal home) of the parents at least until the age of majority. The location of birth and parentage are significant in determining citizenship in this country, though both must be in place for citizenship to be authentic. Foreign parents of a child born in the US are not under the US's jurisdiction and their 'domicile' is also foreign, hence so is the child.

"Are you proposing that we go back even farther? How about we jump back to a time when abortions were performed with wire coat hangers, women couldn't vote and the color of your skin dictated which drinking fountain you could use. Clearly the past was rosy and wonderful, no one got pregnant unless they wanted to and everyone had the same morals."

wow... please explain to me where I said anything about abortion and woman's rights. Explain where I said about jumping back in time to where woman couldn't vote, or colors or races and drinking fountains...etc.

Elect, you mistake "authentic" for "automatic." Domicile is not citizenship and domicile depends on intent. Def. domicile: The place at which a person is physically present and that the person regards as home; a person's true, fixed, principal, and permanent home, to which that person intends to return and remain even though currently residing elsewhere. Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed.

The 14th amendment is clear that US citizenship is automatically conferred by birth inside the US regardless of parentage (with some statutory exceptions like children born to diplomats who are NOT subject to the jurisdiction of the US). What another country's laws say about citizenship it a separate issue and dual citizenship is not uncommon.

Orpheus- my point was that the past is not always better.

"Orpheus- my point was that the past is not always better"

granted wsujc210. I wasn't implying that it was all rosy nor that we should go back to everything. Obviously there were a lot of problems back then as well.
I just feel like we've abanded some things that at least held some things in check. Not perfect, but some check at least.

Orpheus, I'm still curious what you think about the fact that teenage pregnancy rates were higher during the 1950s than they have been for the past two decades.

wsujc210;
"Orpheus, I'm still curious what you think about the fact that teenage pregnancy rates were higher during the 1950s than they have been for the past two decades."

Since about 1974 until now more than 1.5 million abortions take place each year. Maybe this is why your pregnancy rates
are lower.

Posted by sjuan at 06/24/09 11:16AM Post ID#: #5703

YakRob,
"Please provide your sources that President Obama said he is afraid to debate the Repulicans on Health Care. I want to see direct quotes please."

How many Republicans or industry experts who oppose govt healthcare, are invited to participate in this "discussion"? Do the math.










the president doesn't have to debate republicans at this point. republicans have made it clear it doesn't matter what it is. they're just going to say no. and industry experts like who, rick scott?

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/29/video-report-who-is-rick-scott-and-what-type-of-health-care-system-is-he-advocating/


republicans don't have a debate. they are not opposed to the president because theres a debate, they're opposed because it will work and their buddies will lose money. thats what this is about. and thats why republicans should not be in public office. they are not concerned with the american people, in fact its pretty safe to say the fact that republicans have chosen to side against america and to support people like rick scott.

wsujc210,
"Orpheus, I'm still curious what you think about the fact that teenage pregnancy rates were higher during the 1950s than they have been for the past two decades."

Here's one explanation:

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html

"Unmarried childbearing. Even though teen childbearing overall has declined steeply over the last half-century, the proportion of all teen births that are nonmarital has increased equally dramatically, from 13% in 1950 to 79% in 2000 (see chart). Two factors are at play. The first is that marriage in the teen years, which was not uncommon in the 1950s, has by now become quite rare. (By the mid-1990s, the typical age of first marriage in the United States had risen to just over 25 for women and 27 for men.) The second is that this trend has extended to pregnant teens as well: In contrast to the days of the "shotgun marriage," very few teens who become pregnant nowadays marry before their baby is born."

wsujc210,
Now girls can afford to buy birth control:

"North Carolina Program Pays Girls a Dollar a Day Not to Get Pregnant"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,529037,00.html

sjuan- if you read that article you would see that money is deposited in a college fund that they cannot access until they enroll in school- like a scholarship for those who pledge to stay child free until they are ready.

BevSue- abortions happened before 1974, just not in a safe or legal capacity.

As for more teenagers being married in the fifties, I do see that point, but I have to wonder how many 14-19 year olds in the fifties were having planned pregnancies. I also wonder if it was the marriage or the pregnancy that came first for the majority of them...

On 6/23 Orpheus wrote:
"actually tex, they [ABC], or team Obama will not allow any other station or opposing views on thier little escapade for this health care "interview" that they are doing with Obama."

Did anybody watch the "little escapade" last night? Again I ask where Orpheus, et. al. got their information. While I don't agree with all the president's positions on healthcare reform, I didn't see NBC, in the persons of Gibson or Sawyer cutting him any slack. As for "opposing views", what was the CEO of Aetna doing in the audience?

I rest my case.

wsujc210
Sorry but murder is murder.. There is no safer way to murder.

wsujc210,
You're kind of comparing apples and oranges. You're comparing pregnancies of married teens in the 50's (which accounted for 85% of teen pregnancies) to today's teen pregnancies of which 79% are out of wedlock.

In the 50's it was the norm to get married in your late teens or early 20's because men could graduate highschool and earn enough of a living to raise a family. Most women didn't go to college, so it's not as if starting a family was ruining their life. In those cases teen pregnancy was not a problem. You're comparing their situations with todays out of wedlock mothers who have no way of providing for themselves.

A more fair comparison would be between unwed teen pregnancies in the 50's and unwed teen pregnancies today, since it is those pregnancies that are most often considered "a bad thing".

according to the National Center for Health Statistics http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/05/1/gr050107.html:

1950 teen birthrate (per 1000 teens) - 81
1950 percent unmarried - 13%
2000 teen birthrate - 49
2000 percent unmarried - 79%

So in 1950 the out of wedlock teen birth rate was 13% x 81 = 10.5
In 2000 it was 79% x 49 = 38.7

I'd definitely say we have a much bigger problem today.

Posted by BevSue at 06/25/09 04:45PM Post ID#: #5859

wsujc210
Sorry but murder is murder.. There is no safer way to murder.








this is true.

what scott roeder did was murder.

what george tiller did was legal medical practice.

those are the facts.

BigEgo
Hitler killed the Jews; Custer killed the Indians; Tiller killed the babies... Murder is Murder

Posted by BevSue at 06/25/09 06:01PM Post ID#: #5866

BigEgo
Hitler killed the Jews; Custer killed the Indians; Tiller killed the babies... Murder is Murder










its this mentally deluded state of conservatism which will continue to reduce republicans to nothing more than a joke of a political movement and party, a regional party slowly going the way of the Whig.

tiller did not kill babies. would you please provide a legal document showing where he had been convicted of murder of some sort. you do have some factual document to support your claim that tiller was guilty of murder, don't you?

wsujc210 said...
"Have you ever been on a fixed low income and needed to buy birth control of some kind? I have. It is not easy, it is not cheap.....
also....
"If they are going there to apply for birth control assistance they are forced to take time off of work, losing income, so they can fill out the necessary paperwork just to be denied coverage on a technicality"...blah, blah, blah, blah blah!

You have more excuses than Carter has pills...
It's all about "P-R-I-O-R-I-T-I-E-S"!...If women/young girls don't want to have a baby and they have "HALF" of a working brain, they "CAN" find a way to keep from getting pregnant. I sure see a ton of poor people on fixed incomes smoking cigs,talking on cell phones, and eating at Mickey dee's...It's the same old "woe is me" B.S. wanting someone else to make it easy....

Overfifty says "It's all about "P-R-I-O-R-I-T-I-E-S"!...If women/young girls don't want to have a baby and they have "HALF" of a working brain, they "CAN" find a way to keep from getting pregnant." Interesting that you don't mention anything about the man's priorities or responsibilities in avoiding getting a woman pregnant - there are ways. Further, you add "I sure see a ton of poor people on fixed incomes smoking cigs,talking on cell phones, and eating at Mickey dee's...It's the same old "woe is me" B.S. wanting someone else to make it easy." Unless you have spoken to these ton's of people you are making assumptions. Are you suggesting that individuals on fixed incomes should not have communication devices or ever go out to eat? Would this apply to elderly on fixed income as well? Just so you know, I DO understand your points and agree with some of it - but the presentation is very one-dimensional and based on your comments I don't think that is really who you are.

BevSue - this anti-abortion stuff is truely mind-boggling given the number of children in this country that are in institutions waiting for adoption; kids in foster care because their parents suck. Yet, you want more people to have children they can't or won't take care of. So, what kids are you standing up for anyway? Are you and the rest of the anti-abortion crowd prepared to adopt these children? As far as murder, war involves murder - we just rationalize it into something heroic. Choose life - right!

BigEgo and YakRob, you are both right. I think all they want is more kids to send to the Middle East or wherever they need to send people to die so they can have heroes. Funny how most of the Anti-abortionists are the same people who want to kill adults, fully formed entities of our own species. THAT is scary. That they cannot see this is what is SCARY. No joke intended.


Lee. Absolutely! But why stop there. The time has come to begin discussing legalizing ALL drugs, as these policemen and ex-policemen want: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition--

Go to-- leap.cc

In addition to LEAP's motives there are many more good reasons to change the law.