Long time between rants…work and other crap have been waaay too time consuming. So here we go.
Two things about this. First, there was an editorial (dual editorials, actually) in the Sunday 4/13 San Diego Union regarding anchor babies and should children of illegal immigrants be granted automatic citizenship. NO!!!!!! They most certainly should not!! I can hear the whining already. “But Dude, who’s going to take care of them?” Their fucking breeding, law-breaking parents, that’s who. Hell, we’re already going to eat the health care costs of the birth and whatever other trauma results, so the birth of the offspring will be properly addressed. What should happen at that point is the father should be arrested (assuming he’s actually present), and then deported. As soon as the mother and infant are able to be discharged (and in this day of “managed” care, that shouldn’t be too long), they too are deported. The problem there, is that the illegals, oh excuse me, undocumented aliens, are most likely from or at least familiar with the border crossing area closest to wherever they were picked up, and will likely cross again. I say make it more difficult! If they’re picked up in San Diego, send them to Columbus, NM so they can cross into Puerto Palomas, Mexico. If they’re picked up in El Paso, send them to Nogales, AZ. If a US citizen is deported from some other country, that country does not, and is not under any obligation to transport the citizen to whichever US Customs point is most convenient…they are taken to wherever the deporting country chooses. “But Dude, what about the families?” So you send the mother and child to wherever the father was taken. Tell the father that his wife and kid will be brought to that same location, and his best chance at being reunited with his family is to wait IN MEXICO!! “So Dude, you’re just anti-immigrant, aren’t you.” Nope. I’m just anti-illegal immigrant. Regarding the so-called anchor babies, I say the laws should be clarified (not changed, because as the laws currently read, citizenship is not spelled out as a birthright for EVERY single baby born on US soil. If a child is born on US soil to parents WHO ARE IN THE COUNTRY LEGALLY, whether work visa, student visa, or even a valid passport, the parents will have the right to request US citizenship for their child. But if you’re in the country illegally, you shouldn’t be entitled to anything more than emergency health care and basic legal protections. But social services? Welfare? Education? Oh hell no!
Which brings me to my second point. A democrat California state legislator, Gil Cedillo (note the Hispanic surname) has proposed legislation that would make illegal immigrant students in California eligible for financial aid for college. WTF?!? They’re ILLEGAL!!!!! ILLEGAL!!!! This is wrong and fucked up on so many levels. First, it will increase competition for financial aid (in a time of increasing costs) for students who are here legally. Second, it will further legitimize criminal behavior (and yes, entering the country illegally is most certainly criminal behavior). Third, and this is a what the fuck were they thinking point unto itself, illegal immigrant students residing in California are eligible for State Resident tuition fees. I’m not sure how that got pulled off, but I’m sure that the legislation establishing in-state vs. out-of-state tuition rates stipulates (something to the effect of) “…a student must establish a legal residence within the State of California for a period of (most likely) a year before becoming eligible for in-state resident reduced tuition rates at State colleges and universities.” And if it doesn’t have the stipulation of “legal residence” in it, then it damn well should. And now there’s these high school graduates, who happen to be illegal immigrants, bitching that they should be able to get in-state tuition rates, because they’ve lived here so long. NO!!!!! FUCK YOU!!!! Unless there was an amnesty granted somewhere that I missed, you still have not established a legal residence in this country, much less this state. What I want to know is how in the hell did these kids go through Kindergarten to the 12th grade without them or their parents being deported! That is a crime, IMO, and one that should be prosecuted fully. Any of these nitwits who register for school, apply for financial aid, whatever, and they can’t provide documentation that shows that they’re here legally, they should be arrested, transported to a border crossing point outside of California, and sent on their way. I would think, since they’d be in presumably unfamiliar territory, that they’d try to work their way back to where they were taken from via Mexico, where they could travel more easily. If you pick them up in San Diego and march them across the border into Tijuana, they’ll likely be back across within a few hours. Put them in unfamiliar territory and maybe it will act as a deterrent. “But Dude, you must just hate Mexicans, don’t you.” Nope. Not at all. I know many people of Hispanic descent, I’ve drank tequila with them, I’ve been invited to their Quinceneras, I’ve slept with plenty of their daughters (18 and over, of course). I don’t hate Mexicans at all. I hate illegal immigrants, and I especially hate whiney illegal immigrants who think that just because they managed to sneak around the law that somebody owes them something, and I really fucking hate politicians that look at all these illegal immigrants as potential beneficiaries of social services which would a) increase the perceived need for government-run social services which would solidify the politicians’ perception of their importance to approve, implement, and manage said services, and b) by making all of these illegal immigrants dependent on these government-run social services, they would then show their gratitude by becoming loyal voters who would consistently vote for the politicians who threw all of this money at them.
Rant over.
I just stopped by your blog and thought I would say hello. I like your site design. Looking forward to reading more down the road.
Robert Michel
By: Robert Michel on April 16, 2008
at 1:02 pm
Dude, you seem like an angry guy. Take a deep breath. Have enough to eat today? Warm bed to sleep in tonight? You’ll be fine.
I just want to comment on your statement: “Regarding the so-called anchor babies, I say the laws should be clarified (not changed, because as the laws currently read, citizenship is not spelled out as a birthright for EVERY single baby born on US soil.”
While it is true that there are exceptions to the Jus Soli Doctrine, you bring them up in a misleading way. The Fourteenth Amendment, §1, 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 imply that the children of illegal immigrants form an exception to the rule. This is not the case. As long as the baby was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (i.e., on U.S. soil) at the time of birth, the Fourteenth Amendment applies, and the baby instantly has citizenship. The Supreme Court has held certain exceptions, but none is implicated simply by the parents’ violation of immigration laws. (The exceptions are for children born of foreign diplomats, children born to parents from a nation with which the U.S. is in a state of war, children born in the Phillipines while they were a U.S. territory, and children born on an American ship at sea.)
While the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in order to make the former slaves citizens after the Civil War, it has not been modified. Denying citizenzhip to a child born on U.S. soil is unconstitutional, even if the mother was illegally present in the country at that time. Your goal, denying citizenship to “anchor babies,” would in fact require a change in the law (and a mighty difficult change, too—it’s not too easy to modify the Constitution).
By: number8er on April 19, 2008
at 7:45 pm
@number8er:
I am angry (the whole point of the blog, actually). I stand corrected on your assertion that the laws do currently spell out that all babies born under US jurisdiction are automatically granted citizenship. I still think that should be clarified to spell out a definition of jurisdiction that reflects the actual intent of the 14th amendment…not to grant citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants (because let’s face it, the slaves, if they weren’t born here were likely brought here against their will, so at most they should be viewed in the light of somebody requesting asylum instead of someone who entered voluntarily and illegally), but to legitimize children of people who were brought here against their will. If the legal language is specific enough that it will require an actual law be passed, I agree that it will be a very difficult process but is definitely one that should be pursued. Granted, a big step would be to simply enforce the entry laws and protect the border, but obviously the politicians in Washington, Sacramento and other locales don’t have the intestinal fortitude to do what’s right and enforce the laws that are already on the books.
By: The Dude on April 21, 2008
at 9:12 am
“…but to legitimize children of people who were brought here against their will.”
That’s the whole point of the law…ALL children born here are citizens, because you CANNOT punish them for what their parents did…it doesn’t matter whether the parent came here as contraband (slave) or willingly without establishing legal entry. It’s still not the children’s fault.
Your argument is logically flawed. Maybe if you weren’t so angry and so worried about what other people do, you could think clearer.
By: anre1969 on April 23, 2008
at 7:58 am
@ anre1969:
Actually you can (and society does) punish children all the time for what their parents do. Look at the polygamist children who have been taken away from their families because THEIR PARENTS BROKE THE LAW! Besides, whether or not we can punish children for what their parents do, I think in this case it should be done. Does the child benefit by becoming an instant citizen? Of course. Do the parents who broke the law benefit by their actions? Unfortunately yes. That is why it is imperative that this law be changed. If that doesn’t work for you, try this. In a court of law, evidence that is obtained improperly or illegally is not supposed to be presented or utilized. It is the “Fruit of the Poison Tree” argument, and it is a long-standing legal principle in this country. By that same argument, if the parents are here illegally, then the children should be considered illegal as well. Ultimately, though, it goes back to the 14th amendment, which was passed to address the issue of slaves, WHO WERE BROUGHT HERE AGAINST THEIR WILL! They didn’t choose to come here, so it was (properly) considered that they weren’t here criminally and in effect they as a class were granted a form of asylum. And as such, their children were considered to be citizens of this country, because their parents were in this country in some form of legitimate fashion. Those who enter the country voluntarily are committing a crime, and unless they go through the proper channels of requesting asylum of some form AND RECEIVE IT, they’re not in the country legally and then their children should not be considered citizens.
So my argument is not logically flawed, and I’m worried about this issue because I live in a border region, and I see the problems caused by illegal immigrants (minor ones like trash and theft, major ones like brush fires), and am tired of seeing municipal and school district budgets run in the red and wind up short-changing legitimate citizen children because they’re forced to accommodate these children of illegal immigrants and their elevated need of taxpayer-funded social services. I’m thinking very clearly. I live here. I pay my taxes, and I think that my tax dollars are being wasted on social services for illegal immigrants and their offspring.
By: The Dude on April 23, 2008
at 9:17 am
Children born into that situation did not choose to be born in the US. Therefore, they were brought to the US without their knowledge and it is something that they have to live with. They did not ask their parents to be born in the US. So, in a sense it could be argued that they could in fact be brought to the US against their will. They are being denied a culture that belongs to their parents.
Now, I think everyone understands the fact that individuals such as yourself have problems because you are in a border region. Yet, your thoughts on their drain on taxpayers. Undoubtedly many illegal immigrants do pay taxes and share their foot of the bill. Not only do many pay taxes, but they are being exploited by employers and paid only 5-6 dollars an hour. These are jobs that Caucasians, pardon my language, think they’re too good for. This also includes the black population.
In regards to the health system, I think that it demonstrates the need for a different type of health system. If, it is reconsidered to offer health insurance to everyone individuals such as you and many of us won’t have to wait hours in the emergency room when we truly have an emergency. I personally would like to try this method and see if it works instead of having patients with headaches and colds in the emergency room.
Now, I’m very interested in what you think of Homelessness.
By: rochliz on May 14, 2008
at 12:26 am
@rochliz: sorry for the delay in replying, but your comment was in the spam filter.
I agree that children born into that situation did not necessarily want to be born in the US. The difference between their situation and that of the children of former slaves (which was the basis for the 14th amendment) is that the former slaves didn’t voluntarily enter the US. Illegal immigrants did enter illegally, and therefore should find themselves eligible for extremely reduced rights and availability of social services as compared to someone who did not enter voluntarily. And that does not automatically mean that these newborns who “entered involuntarily” should automatically be citizens…in the case of the former slaves, the recognition of their status as free persons means that legally they weren’t dependent on anybody…the newborns are legally dependent on their parents, regardless of what culture or country or society they come from.
I agree on the jobs, and it is disappointing that some people find those jobs beneath them. That being said, I’m sure that some pasty white persons would do those jobs if they paid a high enough (minimum) wage, offered benefits, and so on. Unfortunately the way wages and benefits have been legislated in this country, and in California in particular, it doesn’t make financial sense to an employer to legitimately hire someone and comply with all of the rules and regulations that may apply. So to avoid all of those costs and headaches, they take a chance and hire illegal immigrants. Not a good system.
Finally, healthcare. The current system isn’t great, but I much prefer it over a government-run universal healthcare system. All you have to do is look at the DMV or the IRS and decide if you want those people responsible for making life and death decisions on you or a loved one. If the government is going to provide social services to the underprivileged, converting Medicare to what amounts to a stand alone insurance program (like Blue Shield or Kaiser or whomever) and allowing people to visit a healthcare provider of their choice (while making sure that healthcare providers accepted the government insurance coverage) should help eliminate people who go to the ER for a cold or fever.
Finally, homelessness. I see three classes of homelessness. First, those who are homeless because of disease, disability, or addiction. Those people are who the government is supposed to help, and I think that efforts should be made to get these people help via the government insurance program I mentioned previously. The second group are those who are homeless due to bad financial situations, but they are working on not being homeless. They are trying to save money, trying to work, trying to keep a family together (think Will Smith’s character in The Pursuit of Happyness). Those are the people that welfare is supposed to help, ON A SHORT TERM BASIS. These are the people who are trying to get back on their feet, and typically need little more than a hand up and temporary help. The third group consists of those who are just looking for a handout and are too lazy to make a living for themselves. I have no problem with providing help to people who need it, but I prefer the idea of welfare to work. Welfare should be a program that works to eliminate its own need. Providing disadvantaged or homeless people a place to stay, a place to receive mail, computer help in creating a resume, a place to shower and get cleaned up, child care, interview and/or office-appropriate clothing, these are services that help people help themselves and get them back to self sufficiency. People who are physically and mentally capable of working but choose not to and want to receive public assistance or welfare, those are the people who should be basically rounded up and utilized for public work gangs. Sweeping up schools and city hall buildings. Mowing the grass at city parks. That type of work. If they’re going to be what amounts to wards of the state, they’ll need to do something to earn their keep. That’s only fair. If they’re not capable of working, that’s a different story. If they are capable of working, but choose to be homeless, so be it. If they then choose to not work and attempt to get welfare, that’s where the labor kicks in.
By: The Dude on May 19, 2008
at 4:17 pm