The new law in Arizona has made me start thinking more about the issue. I was under the impression that people who come to the US not through the proper channels wont get things like SSN numbers meaning they have to work under the table. Ok fair enough one of the arguments I just heard is about how the “problem” is even affecting schools. Ok, so does that mean illegal immigrants kids go to public school? I have no problem with this regardless of my stance of immigration laws I believe knowledge should be granted freely. How do they enroll their kids in school though [if they do] Does not the school need a birth certificate or other such documentation?
I’m really curious about this “knowledge being distributed freely” thing. Are not my tax dollars used to fund public schools? Sorry, but I really get irked by people calling things “free” that are in now way, shape or form FREE. You do realize teachers don’t work for “free”? Right?
Feel FREE to put me in the category of people that doesn’t like my hard earned money being spent to educate illegal aliens. Especially those from countries that make our immigration laws look very tame in comparison. Yes, Mexico, I’m talking about you!
To answer your question though, it’s quite easy to get fake ssn’s. Also, I don’t believe a lot of schools force the issue of citizenship. And to be quite honest, I’d rather see their kids (and a lot of them are born here therefore they are considered citizens) in school getting an education then not. Doesn’t mean I think it’s right for their parents to be here illegally but if I lived south of the border I’d also want a better life too.
My information is several years old, but I was told by a principal that public schools are required to admit children of illegal immigrants. If this is still true, it is one of the few ways an illegal immigrant can be a legal government photo ID (student badge).
TANSTAAFL, of course. I’d be under the impression that “free” as used here means “recipient does not pay a consideration for receiving it.” A restaurant offering “free refills of (non-alcoholic) beverage with meals” means, “You’re charged once, either as part of a table d’hote meal or as a separate charge, for your first glass/cup-ful of beverage, then any refills are included in the overall cost of the meal, not charged for separately.” Obviously the restaurant needs to recoup its cost for them, but it finds that giving ‘free’ refills and increasing meal charges by 50 cents is better public relations than charging you for a second cup of coffee/glass of Coke. In that sense, the students are not charged for their education, so it is “free” to them – even though the taxpayer uiltimately foots the bill.
Most governmental agencies that have to treat or provide service to everyone legal or not, get around this simply by not requesting that information. If a school never asks “are you in this country legally” there is no excuse for any child to be out of school. It’s called “plausible deniability”
In border towns you can buy an ID, a SSN card etc. So, most illegals have a SSN, most file taxes, etc… It’s just that if anyone really looks into that SSN, it was issued to one Gertrude Johnson during 1954 in Minnesota. But schools and most other agencies don’t look that hard.
It’s not even really ID theft as the Illegal isn’t trying to pretend he is Mildred, isn’t going to get a credit card in her name and run up bogus purchases or anything.
Very few illegals work under the table, only a few more %-wise that dudes born here. See the thing is, if a employer hires an illegal- but looks at and documents a SSN, and pays them something close to what he pays the other farm workers (or whatever), he has plausible deniability if the Feds go after him. If he is paying all the illegals under the table and less than Minimum wage however, that’s not only solid evidence he KNEW they were a Illegal, it’s evidence of tax fraud and other various employment laws. It’s too risky.
Illegal immigrants rarely bring their kids with them, if ever. In nearly all cases, if children in the US have illegal immigrants for parents, they were born here, and hence are citizens in their own right.
If the kids themselves are illegal immigrants, they still have to be documented. Schools in nearly every state require proof of up-to-date immunizations and the like, unless the parents have a religious objection.
ETA: It’s worth noting that all illegal immigrants pay some tax - property taxes (whether directly or via a rental agreement), sales tax, and in most cases Federal income tax and Medicare/Social Security withholding (which they’ll never get back).
They are not “getting around” anything, and it is not called “plausible deniability”.
It’s called “not wasting your own and everyone else’s time by asking irrelevant questions”. If the agency is required to provide services to legals and illegals alike, why would they care whether a particular client is legal or illegal? Why would they want to ask?
Do you have kids?
Do you plan to have kids?
I have no kids nor plan to have any. “Feel FREE to put me in the category of people that doesn’t like my hard earned money being spent to educate” your kids. :rolleyes:
The issue is a bit more complex than that and illegal immigrants are probably a net benefit. Ask any farmer if they could stay in business without migrant workers. I saw a farmer being interviewed who, without missing a beat, complained about immigrants while in the same breath said he could not possibly stay in business if he could not hire migrant workers (the irony was thick). To be sure your vegetables are a lot cheaper because of those illegal immigrants.
Besides, as it happens for all that “stuff” they get they actually pay into the system more than they receive. For instance their employers automatically deduct taxes from their paychecks (same as you) but since they are here illegally they will never get that back (e.g. social security when they grow old).
Really depends where you live. Illegal immigrants are a net drain on states like California. Most of that comes from education costs. Other states with fewer immigrants it is a net benefit. Not sure how it plays out financially in the end when all states are added up.
Still, if you are older and on Social Security (as one example) then illegal immigrants are paying you; not the other way around.
Wrong. Using someone else’s SSN violates theIdentity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998.
http://www.identity-theft-tips.com/the-identity-theft-and-assumption-deterrence-act/
Yes, it’s technically ID theft, but there’s no intent.
Unfortunately for the apologists for illegal immigration, the US Constitution does not support the premise that
A child born to an illegal immigrant mother is no more “subject to the jurisdiction” of the Laws of the US than a visitor from, say, England. If a diplomat from another country were to give birth while on American soil, the baby would NOT automatically become a citizen. Were an American woman to give birth while in another country, her child would not become a citizen of that country.
This fiction has been perpetuated because it has rewards, both real and intangible, for those who espouse it.
One of the primary reasons for being a country at all is to be able to define who “we” are and “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” If anyone, from anywhere in the world, could just come here, set up a homestead and raise a family, that would be considered an act of aggression. If another country were to send—or encourage its citizenry to come—to our land by the millions, that may be interpreted as an act of war.
Millions of people from all around the world see The United States of America as a beacon of liberty and prosperity. Many would dearly love to come to our land and share our blessings. They apply, through the appropriate channels, for permission to come here, but are forced to wait—sometimes for years—while hundreds of thousands every year jump to the head of the line by crossing the border illegally.
While defense of our borders is a Federal responsibility, some States suffer more than others by the lack of enforcement of our laws. The fact that one State, Arizona, has made it a violation of State law to be in violation of a Federal law seems perfectly reasonable.
A lot of illegal immigrants got into the country legally and got their SSN’s legally. Many people are “illegal” in the sense of being in legal limbos, not in the sense of “wetbacking”: I’ve been myself in the situation of being fully legal (legal SSN, legal Worker’s Visa) except for having to wait for three months for a replacement SSN card, due to the new security procedures. So long as I didn’t get my new card I was breaking documentation laws, therefore “illegal”, but it was caused by the government’s own procedural troubles.
Others have been working legally until their employer refused to provide them with the papers needed to renew the work permit (again, BTDT, refused to buy the T-shirt and returned home instead… but I could afford to do that, others can’t).
The OP may find a search on posts by Eva Luna containing the word backlog useful.
Well, you know, you argue a good case, and it’d be interesting to explore it in GD. But given that the SCOTUS has defined ius soli citizenship differently than you do, I know which I prefer to rely on. (By the way, the reason we can deport so-called ‘illegal aliens’ is that they are “subject to the laws thereof” – they do not possess diplomatic immunity.
I think we’re wondering off the OP’s topic but aren’t most school systems paid for by property taxes? Presumedly even illegal immigrants live somewhere. They either own a home and pay property taxes directly or rent and pay them indirectly through their landlord. So schools may not be free but illegal immigrants are paying taxes for them.
So much factually incorrect information in one post. Let’s take this one step at a time.
You’ll be interested to learn that interpretation of the Constitution is reserved for the courts. SCOTUS clearly established that the Citizenship Clause does grant citizenship to children born in the US, regardless of their parentage.
See US v. Wong Kim Ark (1903).
Anyone on US soil is subject to the jurisdiction of the laws of the United States. That’s why British people on vacation at Disney World can’t walk around openly smoking crack.
Diplomats and their attaches and families are explicitly exempted from the jurisdiction of their host countries; visitors are not.
There are plenty of other countries that grant citizenship to children born on their soil.
Compliance with the laws of the United States certainly has its rewards. So does illegal immigration, at least as far as certain industries go, but if you really think that orange grove owners paid off SCOTUS in 1903 you have issues.
And yet there were virtually no limits on immigration until nearly 1870. The citizenry of other countries did come to “our land” by the millions. Not that this has anything to do with anything.
Mexican illegal immigrants aren’t “jumping the line”. The number of immigrant visas granted to Mexican citizens in the last five years is zero, not counting employment- or student-only visas.
There are about 40 other threads where you can discuss Arizona SB 1070.
I realize there’s a bit of humour in this comment, but… There are sevral reasons why you want an educated polpulation, regardless of status. Our entire society is based on the need for education. Even the McDonalds counter person nees to read the till, read the receipt to be sure they have included everything; everyone needs to read raodsigns, count money, etc.
Plus think of paying school board taxes as paying back for the education you received. As a payment to society for the education you received, and in return for a functional society that allows everyone to - you pay for the education of others. So until 50%-lus of the USA are prepared to do a wholesale roundup of evryone there illegally, better to at least educate the children who are here. They may grow up to have real jobs (especially if born in the USA and legal) rather than minimum-wage or less, raising the level of the whole country.
The trouble with any requirement for “cheking ze papers” is defining what is correct and what is not. Unless it is obvious the employer / school / hospital KNOWS the person is illegal what can you charge them for? If they accept forged papers, where’s the crime? Is being duped now a crime? So until the USA has a specific set of criteria - “they show you this or they are illegal” or “ask this website or government department about their status” - you can’t fault an employer without a serious amount of proof. (And as others have pointed out - it will just discourage employers from taking the risk of hiring apparently legal hispanics).
BUT… issuing identity cards is too much like becoming a state like… <insert favorite bad state reference here> . So we’ll reserve that for air travel.
I think it varies by state. In Texas, property taxes are a big source; and I’m pretty sure landlords raise the rent when their taxes go up. We also use State Funds: “Composed of a variety of state taxes and fees including sales and franchise taxes.” Everybody pays sales tax & Texas has no state income tax.
Plus some Federal funds. Since some of my Income Tax goes to pay for stuff like Tom DeLay’s pension & lifetime medical care, I’m glad to help kids get educated with some of the rest. No matter where they or their parents were born.
Correct as to the diplomat; incorrect as to the illegal immigrant mother.
The law on this subject is clear. You may say that the Constitution doesn’t support this view, but in fact it does. “Subject to the jurisdiction” of a court of law means that the court may issue and enforce orders against a person. The diplomat is free from such jurisdiction; the illegal immigrant is not. If the dilpomat were to go on a killing spree, she could be expelled from the country, but not tried for murder; if the illegal immigrant went on a killing spree, she could be arrested, prosecuted, and jailed.
If a person is required to obey the orders of a court, they are under the jurisdiction of that court.
And the Supreme Court has answered these questions directly. In US v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), as Really Not All That Bright mentioned above, the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment granted citizenship to the child of legal resident aliens. They didn’t go quite as far as RNATB suggested, since their holding applied to legal residents. But that’s not the end of the discussion: In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Court addressed the jurisdiction question head on:
Finally, in INS vs. Rios-Piñeda, 471 U.S. 444 (1985), the Court answered your precise claim: a child born in this country to illegal immigrants is a citizen.
(emphasis added)
So… stop helping, mmmkay?
Thanks for the clarification. I forgot which of the holdings it was that specifically applied to the children of illegal immigrants.
It’s also worth noting that our hypothetical “visitor from England” would probably not have a grant of citizenship conferred on the child because they’re just visiting. That is, the parents would contact the local British consulate and inform them that they had delivered a child while in the US and needed to register him as a British citizen (and not bother applying for a US Social Security number or any of the other stuff that American residents would do). However, the child would have the right to automatic US citizenship, if the parents wanted him to have it (or the child later decided to exercise his right thereto).