America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Here's some eye opening information on the Long Term effect of ignoring Illegal Invaders and the NEVER ending financial burden to the taxpayers of the United States using our own 14th to suck us dry.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3326736/posts?page=27


Chain Migration. A child born to illegal aliens in the United States can initiate a chain of immigration when he reaches the age of 18 and can sponsor an overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own. When he turns 21, he can also sponsor his parents and any brothers and sisters.9

Family-sponsored immigration accounts for most of the nation’s growth in immigration levels. Of the 1,130,818 immigrants who were granted legal permanent residency in 2009, a total of 747,413 (or, 66.1 percent) were family-sponsored immigrants. A change to U.S. immigration laws in the late 1950s — one that allowed for the admission of extended family members outside the nuclear family — resulted in the average annual flow increasing from 250,000 then, to over 1 million today. This number continues to rise every year because of the ever-expanding migration chains that operate independently of any economic downturns or labor needs.10 Although automatic and universal birthright citizenship is not the only contributor to chain migration, ending it would prevent some of this explosive growth.

The issue of birthright citizenship for the children of aliens who have not been admitted for permanent residence cannot be resolved in isolation from other immigration issues. For example, politicians on both sides of the aisle regularly call for an increase in temporary workers, but the economic and social impact of children born to these workers while they are in the United States is never part of the discussion. Under any large-scale guestworker program, it is likely that tens of thousands of children would be born on U.S. soil. If the guestworker does not depart when his work visa expires, he becomes an illegal alien and is subject to deportation. But immigration authorities cannot deport the guestworker’s citizen child along with the overstaying guestworker. The result is that the guestworker makes the case for indefinite stay based on the principle of “keeping families together” — an argument that is often successful at stopping an alien’s deportation. Because of birthright citizenship, what started as a policy to bring in laborers on a temporary basis can become yet another channel for permanent immigration. This is one of the reasons why some have said that “there is often nothing more permanent than a temporary worker.”11

Birth Tourism. The significant benefits of U.S. citizenship and the executive branch’s permissive birthright citizenship policies have become a magnet for those seeking to add a U.S. passport holder to their family. An entire industry of “birth tourism” has been created and the phenomenon of pregnant women traveling (legally) to the United States specifically for the purpose of giving birth on U.S. soil has grown largely without any debate in Congress or the consent of the public.

“It’s easy. If you register the birth, it’s automatic that your baby can get an American passport,” said Kim Jeong Yeon, a Korean woman who traveled to the United States on a tourist visa while six months pregnant.12 Like many other women, Kim spent thousands of dollars to have a company arrange the travel. “If they could afford it, all my friends would go to the United States to have their babies,” she said.

According to Selin Burcuoglu, a Turkish woman who traveled to the United States to give birth last year, the process was easy: “We found a company on the Internet and decided to go to Austin for our child’s birth. It was incredibly professional. They organized everything for me. I had no problem adjusting and I had an excellent birth. I don’t want her to deal with visa issues — American citizenship has so many advantages.”13

Birth tourism can be a lucrative business for immigrants who facilitate the travel and birthing process for their former countrymen. Turkish doctors, hotel owners, and immigrant families in the United States have assembled what amounts to a birth-tourism assembly line, reportedly arranging the U.S. birth of 12,000 Turkish children since 2003. The Turkish-owned Marmara Hotel group offers a “birth tourism package” that includes accommodations at their Manhattan branch. “We hosted 15 families last year,” said Nur Ercan Mağden, head manager of The Marmara Manhattan, adding that the cost was $45,000 each.14

Similarly, the Tucson Medical Center (TMC) in Arizona offers a “birth package” to expectant mothers and actively recruits in Mexico. Expectant mothers can schedule a Caesarean or simply arrive a few weeks before their due date. The cost reportedly ranges from $2,300 to $4,600 and includes a hospital stay, exams, and a massage. Additional children trigger a surcharge of $500.

“These are families with a lot of money, and some arrive on private jets and are picked up by an ambulance and brought here,” said Shawn Page, TMC’s administrator of international services and relations.15

In California, three Chinese-owned “baby care centers” offer expectant mothers a place to give birth to an American citizen for a fee of $14,750, which includes shopping and sightseeing trips. For a $35 daily fee, television, internet, and three meals are provided. “We don’t encourage moms to break the law — just to take advantage of it,” explains Robert Zhou, the agency’s owner. Zhou says that he and his wife have helped up to 600 women give birth in the United States within the last five years. In fact, they started the business after traveling to the United States to have a child of their own. Zhou explains that the number of agencies like his has soared in the past five years.16

Zhou believes that a cheaper education is often a motivating factor and his pitch to prospective clients includes the notion that public education in the United States is “free.” One of his clients, Christina Chuo, explains that her parents “paid a huge amount of money for their education” in the United States because they were foreign students; having an American citizen child permits her child to acquire the same education at a lower tuition. She also noted that she and her husband were not interested in permanently immigrating to the United States, “except, perhaps, when they retire.”17

As discussion about limiting birthright citizenship heats up in the United States, some foreign countries are concerned about possible changes. The Nigerian media, for example, recently published an article titled, “American Agitations Threaten a Nigerian Practice.” The practice referred to is that of Nigerians traveling to the United States to have a child — a practice that, according to the newspaper, is “spreading so fast that it is close to becoming an obsession.”18

The U.S. State Department is not permitted to deny a woman a temporary visitor visa simply because she is pregnant and the legal document she obtains means she is not likely to be stopped at the border.19 Consequently, the practice of granting automatic birthright citizenship allows a seemingly temporary admission of one foreign visitor to result in a permanent increase in immigration and grants of citizenship that were not necessarily contemplated or welcomed by the American public. Add to this the fact that immigration authorities are less likely to deport a visitor who overstays their permitted time if they have a U.S. citizen child, and one ends up with an immigration policy quite different from that which was originally intended.

The birth tourism industry illustrates how the executive branch’s permissive birthright citizenship policies can have the effect of transferring control over the nation’s immigration policy from the American people to foreigners.

Being born here translating into automatic citizenship really doesn't make sense, it's been used just to get around immigration rules. Time for a change to end the loophole.

Need a constitutional amendment.
No problemo.

No your take on it being okay is a bunch of hubub.....there's a damn good reason why many other Nations have indeed changed this anchor baby bull**** and if your okay with it great.....Many other more rational Americans are NOT. Again you " think " your the smartest fella in the room when posting it would require an amendment to our Constitution, I and all others who think it's WAY past time to address this PROBLEM understand this and would disagree with your LAX attitude on it.


LMFAO I'll bet you didn't even bother to read ANY of the article or go to the link posted did you?

It IS that important and there ARE people already working on it as stated. You believe what you want....doesn't make it so. Here's a bit more for you to ignore....



The Impact of Birthright Citizenship

Between 300,000 and 400,000 children are born to illegal immigrants in the United States every year. Put another way, as many as one out of 10 births in the United States is to an illegal immigrant mother.2 All of these children are considered by the executive branch of the U.S. government to be U.S. citizens who enjoy the same rights and are entitled to the same benefits as the children of U.S. citizens.

The population of U.S.-born children with illegal alien parents has expanded rapidly in recent years from 2.3 million in 2003 to 4 million in 2008; since these figures do not include children who are 18 years of age or older nor those who are married, the actual figure is somewhat larger.3

The two citizenship benefits that have drawn the most attention in the birthright citizenship debate are, first, food assistance and other welfare benefits to which a family of illegal aliens would not otherwise have access, and second, the ability of the child when he grows up to legalize his parents, and also to bring into the United States his foreign-born spouse and any foreign-born siblings. The sponsored spouse can, in turn, sponsor her own foreign-born parents and siblings, and the siblings can, in turn, sponsor their own foreign-born spouses, and so on, generating a virtually never-ending and always-expanding migration chain.

Because having a child on U.S. soil can cement an immigrant’s presence in the United States, provide access to welfare benefits, and ultimately initiate chain migration of the child’s extended family and in-laws, children born to illegal aliens and legal temporary visitors are sometimes referred to as “anchor babies.” These benefits have contributed to the growth of a “birth tourism” industry.

The voices calling for a change to the current application of the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment are quite diverse and are not limited to activists and policymakers. The influential Circuit Court Judge Richard Posner held in a recent court decision that the policy of granting automatic birthright citizenship for children of illegal and temporary aliens is one that “Congress should rethink” and that the United States “should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children.”4

Benefits. Most benefits Americans would regard as “welfare” are not accessible to illegal immigrants. However, illegal immigrants can obtain welfare benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps on behalf of their U.S.-born children. Many of the welfare costs associated with illegal immigration, therefore, are due to the current birthright citizenship policy. Put another way, greater efforts at barring illegal aliens from federal welfare programs will not significantly reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access the benefits. Nationwide, 40 percent of illegal alien-headed households receive some type of welfare. In some states, the rate is higher: in New York, 49 percent receive welfare; in California, the rate is 48 percent; in Texas, it is 44 percent; and in Georgia, 42 percent of illegal alien-headed households receive welfare.5 Only 19 percent of households headed by native-born citizens make use of a major welfare program.

Of course, states offer additional welfare benefits as well. Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich recently released data from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services indicating that children of illegal aliens in Los Angeles Country received $50 million in welfare benefits during the month of February 2010 alone. The report estimates that 23 percent of all CALWORKS and food stamp issuances in Los Angeles County are to illegal immigrant parents who collect on their U.S.-born children’s behalf. The supervisor estimates that illegal immigration and birthright citizenship cost taxpayers in Los Angeles County over $1 billion annually, not including education costs.6

Despite taxpayers’ assistance, approximately 59 percent of illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children live in or near poverty. In total, 21.5 million immigrants (legal and illegal) and their young children live in or near poverty. In California, Arizona, Texas, and Colorado illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children account for roughly a fifth of the those in poverty.7 Ultimately, treating the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens as citizens has the statistical effect of increasing the percentage of U.S. citizens living in poverty.

It is important to remember that births to illegal aliens are not spread evenly throughout the United States. Some states, particularly those closer to the southern border, carry a much larger burden. According to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, between 60,000 to 65,000 babies are born to illegal aliens in Texas every year, representing about 16 percent of total births statewide. The report estimates that between 2001 and 2009, births to illegal immigrant women totaled 542,152 in Texas alone.8

I don't have a particular dog in the "birthright citizenship" fight. I think it's funny that people are taking the "I'm in now, so let's close the door behind us" attitude, but it's more a chuckle than anything else.

That being said, one's references lose a LOT of validity when they keep referencing an amendment to the constitution, which has been in place since the 1800s as somehow ttied to the "executive branch"... it stinks of manipulation.

I prefer to think that as long as it doesn't matter to folks like yourself...it will never change. Have you contacted your Congressman? I have

Who the F*ck said anything about your savior Obama?? Again.....I'm FULLY aware of the 14th amendment and what it says!!!! I'm also acutely aware that it's time to address the problem with it....get it???????

Your the one who has NO credibility because you think everything revolves around your savior.

First of all, he's not my savior. He's YOUR President.
Second of all, your LAME source states this "executive branch of the U.S. government".
Who would that be Paul?
And please don't play dumb.

Your the one "playing" dumb....show me where it says THIS administration. Why in Gods sake would I even attempt to blame ONLY this admin. for this ongoing problem????? that'd be very naive @ best

It didn't say "this administration". But you don't think it's leading that BOTH articles you posted blamed the birthright citizenship on some sort of executive branch allowing this to happen... or wanting it to happen.

You don't think that's trying to lead people to a specific conclusion, for the author to include that patently incorrect sentence in both articles? They are expecting their readership to be smart enough to understand who's in the executive branch now, but not smart enough to understand constitutional amendments.

Well aware of what I post....also aware of what you post and who you direct your BS at. You give up because you were caught trying to make it look like I was blaming Obama....I wasn't.

Ok, someone explain this to me...

The first time I see the use of "this administration" is in post # 120


Then in post # 122


Followed by this in post # 123


Ending at post #124



Am I the only one confused here?

I don't think you're the only one confused here.

Apparently so....look @ post 113 and 118

This thread wasn't posted in a vacuum.
Again, YOU have a history of blaming Obama for all of YOUR perceived problems with these United states.

Post #6 by who else?
Can I ask Victor, are you actually okay with the way in which this Administration deals with the flood of Illegal Aliens that are already here and those that continue to come? Are you also okay with tax payer dollars going for FREE legal representation for these Law breakers? Not to mention ALL the other freebies being afforded them....

Trump could boost bill ending birthright citizenship
By Susan Ferrechio • 8/18/15 12:01 AM

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump's call to end birthright citizenship in the United States could revive a similar proposal in Congress that has never gained traction despite past support from top leaders, including Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

"I don't have any doubt that the immigration statement that Trump put out is going to help provide momentum for a number of different pieces of immigration enforcement legislation, and especially birthright citizenship," Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, told the Washington Examiner.

King is the sponsor of a House bill that would restrict automatic birthright citizenship, but his legislation has stalled, as has a companion measure in the Senate. But the bill could get a boost from Trump, who released an immigration reform plan that also calls for ending the policy.

"End birthright citizenship," Trump wrote in his proposal. "This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration."
Trump's idea is hardly new to politics or Congress, where lawmakers have sponsored various bills over the years to curb or end the practice of granting citizenship to children born here to illegal immigrants and other non-citizens.

Watchdog groups say up to 400,000 children are born in the United States to illegal immigrants each year. If they are born on U.S. soil, they are entitled to citizenship under an interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Children of non-citizens who are born here can petition for legal status for their parents when they turn 21, which critics of the law say provides incentive for people to try to cross illegally into the United States in order to give birth.

Reid was once among the supporters of ending birthright citizenship, and sponsored legislation in 1993 that would end the practice.

"If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough, how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant?" Reid said in a Senate floor speech at the time. "No sane country would do that, right?"

Both Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., have also shown support, signaling in 2010 they were willing to consider a proposal to change birthright citizenship. "I think it's worth considering," Boehner said on "Meet the Press" in 2010.

Reid has since reversed his position and no longer supports making changes to the law, as Democrats have focused on courting the support of Hispanic voters with legislation that would make it easier for those here illegally to become citizens or legal residents.

Republican leaders, including Boehner and McConnell, have since grown quiet when it comes to ending birthright citizenship. Their silence tracks the Republican party's effort to improve its image with Hispanic voters following the 2012 election, when two-thirds of this critical voting bloc voted for President Obama.

Lawmakers and scholars disagree about whether changing the nation's birthright citizenship policy would require an amendment to the Constitution.

The Vitter and King legislation, for example, would "close a loophole" in the 14th Amendment, "by clarifying that birthright citizenship is only given to the children of U.S. citizens and legal resident aliens."

But others, particularly critics of the proposal, say the Constitution would have to be amended, which would require the support of two-thirds of both the House and Senate, as well as ratification by two-thirds of all state legislatures.

"Congress could without a doubt clarify the scope of the 14th Amendment through legislation," Jon Feere, a legal policy analyst for the Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates for lower immigration rates.

The two bills calling for an end to birthright citizenship for children born to illegal immigrants, meanwhile, have stalled in the House and Senate, even though both chambers are run by Republicans.

The legislation, sponsored by King and Sen. David Vitter, R-La., respectively, would award citizenship only to children who have at least one parent who is a U.S. citizen, legal permanent resident or member of the U.S. military.

King's bill was featured at a hearing before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Border Security but "there are no plans to mark up the bill at this time," an top committee aide told the Examiner.

Vitter's legislation has seen no action in the Senate after his unsuccessful attempt in April to attach the proposal to an anti-human trafficking bill.

"He'll continue looking for opportunities to move the legislation as an amendment or a standalone," Vitter spokesman Luke Bolar told the Examiner.

King said it could become difficult for Republican leaders to ignore the legislation now that it is part of the campaign platform proposed by Trump, the leading GOP candidate.

"I'm glad Donald Trump has set this up on the table and now the American public can have an open discussion," King said. "Sometimes the agenda in Congress is affected by the public discourse. And so this is the time."




Hmmmm.........

My exact thoughts.

I think TCBY had a stroke or his mommy sent him to bed. How come he wasn't on the ban poll ?

And whining about not getting a B&M owner to give you a discount on your cigars....

seems funny to me that the OP addressed the DECREASE in illegal immigration, and the thread has evolved into hand-wringing anxiety over not addressing the alleged growing menace.

Um, it seems to be trending the way most want, save the outrage for a real issue.

Sometimes you get what you want by doing nothing, or certainly without changing the Constitution.

Now you did it!

Actually, in this instance his notions are not archaic at all. Quite the opposite.

An Anchor Baby is a bigger deal today because of the social services we provide. This is a newer phenomenon, whereas historically immigrants came here for a better life but at least had to WORK for it. Now they pop out the kid north of the Rio Grande and voila! Instant access to your tax dollar.

Being born on our soil should afford citizenship only if the mother is here legally. The 14th amendment doesn't address that issue, although some would argue that it's common sense. Still, from a legal sense the anchor baby is a real concern and it certainly should be addressed very soon.

In any event, it's not by any means an "archaic" notion.