Anchor Baby Power... LEGALS PAYING FOR MEXICO'S HEAVY BREEDING FOR WELFARE IN OUR OPEN BORDERS
La Voz de Aztlan has produced a video in honor of the
millions of babies that have been born as US citizens to Mexican undocumented
parents. These babies are destined to transform America. The nativist CNN
reporter Lou Dobbs estimates that there are over 200,000 "Anchor
Babies" born every year whereas George Putnam, a radio reporter, says the
figure is closer to 300,000. La Voz de Aztlan believes that the number is
approximately 500,000 "Anchor Babies" born every year.
The video below depicts the many faces of the "Anchor
Baby Generation". The video includes a fascinating segment showing a group
of elementary school children in Santa Ana, California confronting the
Minutemen vigilantes. The video ends with a now famous statement by Professor
Jose Angel Gutierrez of the University of Texas at Austin.
Trump and Birthright Citizenship
I once supported Ted Cruz over Donald Trump in the primaries, largely due to the fact that Trump seemed a bull who carried around his own china shop and campaigned like Sherman marching through Atlanta with matches. But he won me over, and I repented my political sins and saw the method in his madness as he overturned the tables at which the elitist moneychangers sat along with the status quo they cherished.
He has unleashed America's entrepreneurs, cut all our taxes, chopped off the strangling regulatory tentacles of big government, liberated American energy, rebuilt the military, ended "free" trade transfers of wealth to those who are not all our friends, fundamentally transformed the judiciary, and dared to step on the new third rail of American politics: illegal immigration and sanctuary cities.
Sadly, some persist in their unbelief, most notably the #NeverTrumps over at the increasingly irrelevant National Review, who have published a piece taking the absurd position that the concept of birthright citizenship is not only constitutional, but an integral part of any originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution:
The conservative beltway publication National Review published a piece in which their legal columnist argues that "constitutional originalism requires" that United States citizenship be given to the children of illegal aliens.Dan McLaughlin of National Review – which infamously launched a campaign against President Trump during the 2016 presidential election – published the piece, titled "Constitutional Originalism Requires Birthright Citizenship," which claims that the U.S. Constitution does provide birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens[.] ...Dan McLaughlin writes for National Review:Among the ideas that percolate now and then on the Right is the idea of reforming or eliminating birthright citizenship, the policy by which anyone born on American soil automatically becomes a natural-born citizen. From a policy perspective, there is fair grounds [sic] for debate: there are reasonable objections to the abuse of birthright citizenship, but also serious problems of principle and practice with changing it. But from a legal perspective, the answer should be clear: a proper originalist interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, as presently written, guarantees American citizenship to those born within our borders, with only a few limited exceptions. [Emphasis added by Breitbart] ...
The Supreme Court has indeed not said birthright citizenship is constitutional, and legal scholars have noted that supporters of birthright citizenship, a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, ignore the intentions of those who wrote that amendment. So much for an originalist interpretation.
Peter H. Schuck, Yale University's Simeon E. Baldwin professor of law emeritus and self-described "militant moderate," reiterated his opinion Monday that birthright citizenship is not required by the U.S. Constitution. Though opposed to many of the president's positions, he was surprised the administration has not made opposition to citizenship for the children of illegal aliens more central to its immigration policy.
On at least one key immigration stance, however, Schuck appears to be in agreement with President Trump. In the 1990s, along with Yale Political Scientist Rogers Smith, he determined, in a book called Citizenship Without Consent, that the policy of granting citizenship to everyone born on American soil, including so-called "anchor-babies" – those born to illegal alliens [sic] – was not mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as is popularly trumpeted by open-borders supporters. Trump came to the same conclusion on the campaign trail, once stating, "We're the only ones dumb enough, stupid enough to have it."
This misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, written to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, has morphed the amendment into a guarantee of birthright citizenship. Merely being born on American soil is said to make you a U.S. citizen. Sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol; have your baby; and you not only have a U.S. citizen, but what is called an "anchor baby," allowing you to stay and bring others in under the banner of family reunification.
During the campaign, Trump correctly called the flawed concept of birthright citizenship the "biggest magnet" for illegal immigration. He would end it, and as for family reunification, Trump is all for it, just saying it should happen on the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border. As the New York Post reported:
Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet The Press," and in a position paper he later released, saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the US."They have to go," Trump said. "What they're doing, they're having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows... the baby's here."
Birthright citizenship is the exception and not the rule worldwide. Even our European brethren, as fond as they are of refugees and open borders, do not embrace it. As Liz Peek writes on FoxNews.com, birthright citizenship is indeed a big magnet for illegal immigration:
The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world that still bestows citizenship on every person born on our nation's soil. Having a child become a U.S. citizen is the greatest reward possible for someone who enters the country illegally. Such status is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free education and benefits, not to mention the incalculable value of our country's security and freedoms. Historically, there was bipartisan enthusiasm for dumping this program; even Democrat Harry Reid had proposed its termination.
The costs of birthright citizenship are staggering, especially when you consider the costs of what is called "chain migration." Once of age, the baby born here can sponsor others. It has even given rise to what is called "birth tourism," where pregnant women are brought to the United States, ostensibly as tourists, to give birth here and have their children deemed American citizens by birth.
Trump said he would end birthright citizenship. Critics have said the task, even if justified, is well nigh impossible, requiring amending the U.S. Constitution. In reality, it may not require altering the 14th Amendment – only correctly interpreting it, perhaps through clarifying legislation.
The Fourteenth Amendment, passed on July 3, 1866, reads, "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." This was done, again, to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves, not illegal aliens. The 1857 Dred Scott decision held that no black, not even a freed black, could be considered a citizen.
In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in October 2008, John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued that illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, therefore their children born on American soil should not be automatically considered U.S. citizens.
During debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole criterion for citizenship. And if citizenship is determined just by place of birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, if they already had citizenship by birthright under the 14th Amendment?
Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it meant that "every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your constitution itself, a natural born citizen[.]"
Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia sought to clarify the situation through H.R. 698, the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005, which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born of the United States of parents who are not U.S. citizens or are not permanent resident aliens.
H.R. 698 declared: "It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens." The bill undertook to clarify "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" to the meaning originally intended by Congress in the 14th Amendment.
The current interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge mistake given the burden illegal aliens have imposed on our welfare, educational, and health care systems, as well as, through increased crime, on our legal system – a very costly one.
There may be hope of correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment through a court case as President Trump reshapes the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with justices of a more "originalist" bent. As noted, the misinterpretation could be corrected through clarifying legislation. We can correct it judicially or legislatively, and we should. Donald Trump was right: becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the U.S. Border Patrol.
It’s time to ‘reimagine’ birthright citizenship
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/its_time_to_reimagine_birthright_citizenship_.html
Illegal Alien Arrested by ICE, Wanted for Murder in Mexico, Has
Five Anchor Babies with Illegal Alien Wife
Facebook
An illegal alien living in the United States who was recently arrested
by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and is wanted in Mexico on
homicide charges has five U.S.-born children that have been rewarded with
birthright citizenship.
Trump’s Welfare Ban for Immigrants Would Be $57.4B Tax Cut for
Americans
Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images
President Trump’s ban on allowing welfare-dependent legal immigrants to
resettle permanently in the United States would likely save American taxpayers
about $1,600 a year per immigrant.
Economist: Mass
Immigration to U.S. Is World's 'Largest Anti-Poverty Program' at the Expense
of...
John Moore/Getty Images
Pro-migration advocates are trying to reopen a catch-and-release
loophole for the growing number of pregnant migrants which has been narrowed by
President Donald Trump.
Riding ‘The Death
Train’ to America’s border
ICE Is Detaining a Woman Who Is 32 Weeks Pregnant
ICE Is Detaining a Woman Who Is 32 Weeks Pregnant
ICE Is Detaining a Woman Who Is 32 Weeks Pregnant
It’s time to ‘reimagine’ birthright citizenship
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/07/its_time_to_reimagine_birthright_citizenship_.html
One
of the biggest challenges in the immigration debate today is that the American
people are routinely given faulty “facts” or outright lies by the media and
opportunistic politicians. The media-manufactured crisis over separating
children from their illegal alien parents at the southern border is just the
most recent example. The misrepresented photos, absurd comparisons of detention
centers to concentration camps, and nonstop cable news demagoguery have served
to confuse the public and advance the narrative of the open borders movement.
Now
comes a whopper: Much of what the American public has been told about
birthright citizenship is wrong. The Immigration Reform Law Institute
(IRLI) recently filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Fitisemanu v.
United States, a case of birthright citizenship currently before the U.S.
District Court for the District of Utah. In its brief, IRLI attorneys did not
take a position on the primary issue inFitisemanu, whether American
Samoa is part of the United States for purposes of citizenship. The brief
instead examined the overarching matter of birthright citizenship. Namely,
does the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution grant automatic citizenship
to children born in the U.S. to parents who are not U.S. residents, or who are
in the country without permission? The findings may well topple
conventional wisdom about one of the crown jewels of the left’s immigration
agenda.
For
decades, many agencies have treated virtually all children born
in the United
States – even the children of illegal aliens or tourists –
as citizens at birth
under the Constitution. This all-inclusive
interpretation of birthright
citizenship, repeated endlessly in the
mainstream media, is what gave rise to
the “anchor baby”
phenomenon. With children born in the United
States to
illegal alien parents instantly
qualifying for welfare and other state and
local
benefit programs, the incentive for aliens to
have their children born in
the U.S. is immense.
Yet
under Supreme Court precedent, neither the children of illegal aliens nor those
of tourists are citizens at birth. In the 1898 case of United
States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court found that a man born in San
Francisco to Chinese parents was a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth
Amendment because his parents, when he was born, were legally residing
in the United States. The holding of this case is widely misread as
conferring citizenship at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment on all persons
whatsoever born in the United States, with the narrow exceptions of children of
diplomats, members of an invading force, or Indians born in the allegiance of a
tribe. The brief shows that this reading is wrong; the Court clearly
excluded the children of illegal aliens and non-U.S. residents from
constitutional birthright citizenship. The Court’s decision has been
incorrectly applied for 120 years.
Based
on Wong Kim Ark and an earlier decision in Wilkins
v. Elk, the still-controlling rule of the Supreme Court is clear: whether
one is a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment depends on whether one
was born in the United States to a U.S.-resident parent who, at the time, both
had permission to be in the United States and owed direct and immediate
allegiance to the United States. This rule happens to exclude the
children of both illegal aliens (who do not have permission to be in the
country) and tourists (who do not “reside” here) from constitutional birthright
citizenship.
Interpreted
correctly, the precedents of these cases would work a sea change in immigration
law as it is currently applied. In addition to shrinking the magnet for
illegal passage across the southern border, recognition of the correct rule
would prevent crass exploitation of our laws by the “birth tourism” industry,
in which foreign nationals essentially plan an American vacation with the
explicitpurpose of bearing a child
here. The payoff is a U.S. passport for the child, who would then have
the right to sponsor the parents for citizenship when he or she reaches 21
years of age. Is this an objective of U.S. immigration policy, or a
mockery of it?
In
her virtue-signaling attacks on Trump administration immigration policy, Sen.
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) declared an urgent need to
“reimagine” the purpose of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
While that proposal is child-like, unserious and a political nonstarter, she’s
correct that some reimagining of immigration law is overdue. A good place
to start would be the loopholes and misinterpretations that have allowed
birthright citizenship to be manipulated in ways that run counter to America’s
best interests.
Illegal Alien Arrested by ICE, Wanted for Murder in Mexico, Has
Five Anchor Babies with Illegal Alien Wife
19 Aug 20186,176
An illegal alien living in the United States who was recently arrested
by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and is wanted in Mexico on
homicide charges has five U.S.-born children that have been rewarded with
birthright citizenship.
Joel
Arrona-Lara, an illegal alien from Mexico, made national headlines this week
when he was arrested by ICE agents while
driving his pregnant wife to the hospital. The establishment media
immediately portrayed Arrona-Lara as a victim
of President Trump’s increased immigration enforcement, but soon after ICE
revealed that the illegal alien is wanted in Mexico for murder.
In
a statement to Breitbart News, ICE officials said Arrona-Lara was
originally brought to their attention after he was charged with homicide in
Mexico.
The
illegal alien has been living in the U.S. illegally with his illegal alien
wife Maria del Carmen Venegas for 12 years, the San Bernardino Sun reveals. The couple has five
children who were all born in the U.S., and thus have been rewarded with
birthright citizenship despite their parents not having come to the country
legally.
These
children are commonly known as “anchor babies,” as they are able to eventually
bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S. through the process
known as “chain migration.” Every two new immigrants to the U.S. brings an
estimated seven foreign relatives with them.
There
are at least 4.5 million anchor
babies in the U.S. under the age of 18-years-old, according to the
Congressional Budget Office. This estimate does not include the potentially
millions of anchor babies who are older than 18-years-old, nor does it include
the anchor babies who are living overseas with their deported foreign parents.
Proponents
of birthright citizenship often claim the 14th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution requires the policy. The Supreme Court, however, has never
explicitly ruled that the children of
illegal aliens must be granted automatic citizenship and many legal scholars dispute the idea.
PROTECTING
OUR BORDERS!
Our
government is too busy easing illegals over the borders!
THE NEW
PRIVILEGED CLASS: Illegals!
This is why you work From Jan - May paying taxes to the government
....with the rest of the calendar year is money for you and your family.
Take, for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children.
He takes a job for
$5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays no
income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax Return, with
his fake Social Security number, he gets an "earned income credit" of
up to $3,200..... free.
He qualifies
for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
He qualifies
for food stamps.
He qualifies
for free (no deductible, no co-pay)
health care.
His children
get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
He requires
bilingual teachers and books.
He qualifies
for relief from high energy bills.
If they are
or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI.
Once
qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our)
taxpayer's expense.
He doesn't
worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.
Taxpayers
provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.
He and his
family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.
Working
Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after Paying their bills
and his.
The American
taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.
Cheap labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people!
*
Trump’s Welfare Ban for Immigrants Would Be $57.4B Tax Cut for
Americans
8 Aug 201824,254
President Trump’s ban on allowing welfare-dependent legal immigrants to
resettle permanently in the United States would likely save American taxpayers
about $1,600 a year per immigrant.
As Breitbart News reported, the Trump
administration is set to roll out a plan in the next month that bars foreign
nationals who need government welfare in order to live from resettling in the
U.S. Such a ban on welfare importation through immigration has been eyed by the
Trump White House since February.
Such a plan
would be a boon for American taxpayers, who currently spend about $57.4 billion a year on paying for
the welfare, crime, and schooling costs of the country’s mass importation of
1.5 million new, mostly low skilled legal immigrants every year. In the last
decade, the U.S. has imported more than 10 million foreign nationals and is on
track to import the same amount in the coming decade if legal immigration
controls are not implemented.
The National Academies of Science released a report two years
ago, noting that state and local American taxpayers are billed about $1,600
each year per immigrant to pay for their welfare, where immigrant households
consume 33 percent more cash welfare than American citizen households.
Harvard economist: US operating world's
"largest anti-poverty program" w/ immigration & making Americans
pay for it. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/10/29/us-operating-largest-anti-poverty-program-world-mass-immigration/ …
Economist: Mass
Immigration to U.S. Is World's 'Largest Anti-Poverty Program' at the Expense
of...
Trump’s seeking to end the “public charge” that mass legal
immigration from mostly the poor and developing world would translate to an
annual tax cut for American taxpayers.
Illegal and
legal immigrant-headed households use nearly 60 percent more taxpayer-funded
food stamps than households headed by native born Americans, a study conducted by the Center
for Immigration Studies (CIS) revealed in 2016.
Harvard
University economist George Borjas says the country’s decades
of importation of more than 1.5 million legal immigrants every year is
the world’s “largest anti-poverty program” that comes at the expense of
American citizens who are forced to subsidize the cost.
“Since 1965, we have admitted a lot of low-skilled immigrants,
and one way to view that policy is that we were running basically the largest
anti-poverty program in the world. That is actually not a bad thing at all,”
Borjas said in an interview last year. “Except someone is going to have to pay
the cost for that.”
Democrats Want
Catch-and-Release for all Pregnant Migrants
10 Aug 2018150
Pro-migration advocates are trying to reopen a catch-and-release
loophole for the growing number of pregnant migrants which has been narrowed by
President Donald Trump.
The
effort builds on the Democrats’ success in using emotional images of
detained migrant parents and their children to undo Trump’s “zero tolerance”
border policy, and it may help Democrats gain support among suburban voters who
are disturbed by televised coverage of the sometimes-distressing process of
deporting migrants.
From
mid-December 2017 to early-April 2018, almost 600 pregnant migrants were caught
crossing the border, and almost 40 were in detention on April 7, the Department
of Homeland Security told Breitbart News. The agency declined to say if the
pregnant migrants were returned home or were released into the United States.
The
inflow of pregnant migrants in the first quarter of 2018 has jumped to 292
women, up by one-third over 2017 numbers, says a July 13 letter from four Democratic
Senators to the Inspector General at DHS who asked for an investigation of the
agency’s practices.
In
March, amid the rise, Trump’s DHS deputies began ending the automatic-release
policy for all pregnant women which was established by President Barack Obama
in 2016. According to the DHS policy, only third-trimester
pregnancies are grounds for release:
ICE
has ended the presumption of release for all pregnant detainees … Generally,
absent extraordinary circumstances, ICE will not detain a pregnant alien during
the third trimester of pregnancy.
Once
released into the United States, most migrants evade enforcement agencies by
disappearing into the population of roughly 11 million illegals and then
getting jobs. Also, migrants who give birth in the United States win the hugely
valuable prize of U.S. citizenship for their children — and likely, eventually,
also f0r themselves — because of the U.S. government’s practice of granting
citizenship to all people born in the United States, regardless of their
parents’ foreign citizenship or prior deportations.
Migrants
are aware of the pregnancy loophole, and some make the dangerous trip north once they
are pregnant. For example, the Getty image above shows a migrant from El
Salvador, seven months pregnant, who turned herself over to border agents on
December 7, 2015, near Rio Grande City, Texas. According to the Getty
photographer, “many pregnant women, according to Border Patrol agents, cross
illegally into the U.S. late into their terms with the intention of birthing
their babies in the United States.”
In
August, a British TV network followed a pregnant woman and her husband to the
border. Once at the border the couple separated to improve their chances of
each getting into the United States:
Riding ‘The Death
Train’ to America’s border
The
nine-month pregnancy-loophole push is being supported by Democratic Senators
and Representatives, pro-migration groups, and immigration lawyers and their
media allies. Twenty-three Democratic Senators are co-sponsoring the “Stop
Shackling and Detaining Pregnant Women Act” which says the Department of Homeland
Security:
(A)
shall not detain a person under any provision of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et
seq.) during pregnancy or postpartum recovery, pending a decision with respect
to whether the person is to be removed from the United States; and
(B)
shall immediately release any detainee found to be pregnant.
“It
is absolutely unacceptable that in our country pregnant women are being
detained, shackled, and denied the care they need to have a healthy
pregnancy,” claimedWashington Sen. Patty Murray
in July. “The Trump Administration should immediately reverse course on
this heartless and dangerous policy that puts the health of mothers and infants
at risk.”
Pro-migration
groups also want to reopen the loophole. For example, the National Latina
Institute for Reproductive Health complained that Trump’s policy:
gives
ICE officials the authority to freely detain pregnant individuals and determine their
release on a case-by-case basis. Given ICE’s record
of not releasing other
immigrant populations, we can expect them to also keep pregnant women
indefinitely detained. We at the National Latina Institute for
Reproductive Health (NLIRH) believe this policy change was made to boost private prison company profits and to
meet the goals of an anti-immigrant agenda …
If
we want this barbaric practice to end, we must abolish ICE and the institutions
that are perpetuating unjust practices. Efforts to abolish ICE seek
to overhaul the system in the long run, which endangers the lives of our
community members held in these facilities, and in the interim we demand ICE
adopt a presumption of release for pregnant detainees.
Migrants from Guatemala, Meregilda
Mejilla, right, and her daughter Maricelda, 6, wait with Ingrid Yanet Lopez
Hernandez, left, and her children Jazmine, 7, Christian, 5, and Cristle
Ordonez, 2, inside the central bus station after they were released by U.S.
Customs and Border Protection, Sunday, June 24, 2018, in McAllen, Texas.
One
unnamed poster-child for the new policy is being offered up by immigration
lawyers, via the Daily Beast website,
in an article titled “ICE Is Detaining a Woman Who Is 32 Weeks Pregnant”:
The
woman arrived in the United States on July 24 of this year, along with her
husband and three children, according to Katy Murdza, advocacy director of the
Dilley Pro Bono Project, which is representing her. The family came from Mexico
seeking asylum. They were initially put in Customs and Border Protection
custody. Then the father was sent to one ICE detention facility, and the mother
and three children—all under age 12—were sent to the Dilley family detention center in
Texas.
After
arriving at the detention center on July 27, the woman––whose name is being
withheld because of her tenuous immigration status––had troubling symptoms,
including fatigue, insomnia, and abdominal pain. And, for the first time in her
pregnancy, she began having serious vaginal bleeding. Her baby is due to be
born on Sept. 19, putting her almost halfway through the third trimester of her
pregnancy.
Before
the Trump administration, ICE had a policy––one it sometimes
violated––against detaining pregnant women. In March, the Trump administration
[has] announced that the policy had changed, and that pregnant women would not
automatically be released from ICE custody. But in that announcement, the agency
said that “Generally, absent extraordinary circumstances, ICE will not detain a
pregnant alien during the third trimester of pregnancy.”
The
article was amplified by pro-migration advocates.
This is deeply disturbing. Officials
implemented a policy stating pregnant woman in their third trimester wouldn’t
be detained “absent extraordinary circumstances.” https://www.thedailybeast.com/ice-is-detaining-a-woman-who-is-32-weeks-pregnant …
ICE Is Detaining a Woman Who Is 32 Weeks Pregnant
Horrifying Scoop by @woodruffbets: @ICEgov is holding an 8 month pregnant woman in detention.
Shameful. https://www.thedailybeast.com/ice-is-detaining-a-woman-who-is-32-weeks-pregnant/ …#EndFamilyDetention
ICE Is Detaining a Woman Who Is 32 Weeks Pregnant
ICE Is Detaining a Woman Who Is 32 Weeks Pregnant
However,
Trump policy has made it more difficult for pregnant migrants to slip into the
United States, pro-migration activists told Buzzfeed News in July:
Pregnant
women were often released from CBP centers faster than other detainees,
particularly after August 2016, when ICE issued a policy limiting detention of
pregnant women to only “extraordinary” circumstances or cases of mandatory
detention. Often it took only a phone call to the center to get a pregnant
woman released on parole, Linda Rivas, the executive director of Las Americas
Immigrant Advocacy Center, told BuzzFeed News. After Trump entered the White
House, these calls stopped working, she said. And after the new policy was
announced, advocates stopped having a reason to think they would.
In
a statement to Breitbart News, DHS said:
To
better align with the President’s Executive Order, ICE has ended the
presumption of release for all pregnant detainees. Instead, as with all
detainees except those in cases of mandatory detention, ICE will complete a
case-by-case custody determination taking any special factors into account.
This does not mean that all pregnant aliens will be detained; only those whose
detention is necessary to effectuate removal, as well as those deemed a flight
risk or danger to the community. Generally, absent extraordinary circumstances,
ICE will not detain a pregnant alien during the third trimester of pregnancy.
ICE detention facilities will continue to provide onsite prenatal care and
education, as well as remote access to specialists for pregnant women who
remain in custody.
A late-term pregnant migrant released from detention in June,
2018, in McAllen, Texas.
An agency
statement to Breitbart News said:
U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is committed to ensuring the health,
safety, and welfare of all those in our care. In accordance with ICE’s
rigorous performance-based
national detention standards, all woman up to age 56 are
screened for pregnancy shortly after being processed into the agency’s
detention facilities. In cases where the intake screening results are in
question, further lab tests will be ordered to confirm a negative or positive
pregnancy result. In addition to pregnancy screenings at intake, ICE detention
facilities provide onsite prenatal care and education, as well as remote access
to specialists for pregnant women who remain in custody.
ICE
makes custody decisions on a case-by-case basis, following a comprehensive
review of the circumstances including any known medical conditions. In making
such determinations, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations officers weigh a
variety of factors, including, but not limited to, the person’s criminal
record, immigration history, ties to the community, risk of flight, and whether
he or she poses a potential threat to public safety.
ICE
Health Service Corps (IHSC) and the service providers who provide care to ICE
detainees are required to comply with ICE standards and government contractual
terms governing ICE’s detention operations. While in ICE custody, female
detainees receive routine, age-appropriate gynecological and obstetrical health
care, consistent with recognized community guidelines for women’s health
services.
When
positive pregnancy test results are received, this information is entered into
the detainee’s health record, so that appropriate medical care is
provided. For non-IHSC staffed facilities, the IHSC Field Medical
Coordinator (FMC) assigned to the facility is notified. In addition,
local ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Field Office leadership is
also notified of any pregnant females in custody and will ultimately determine
if detainees should be transferred to other facilities or released.
All
detainees, determined to be pregnant, are provided appropriate education,
pre-natal care, and post-natal care. Such care includes referral to a
physician specializing in high-risk pregnancies when high risk pregnancy is
indicated.
IHSC
providers must provide relevant laboratory results and objective measurements
(e.g., fetal heart tones rate, fundal height measurement) to the obstetrician
to facilitate continuity of care. Medical providers must see pregnant
detainees/residents on a monthly basis, or more often, based on risk factors or
the recommendation of the obstetrics specialist.
At
all non-IHSC staffed facilities, detainees are evaluated and treated pursuant
to the contractually applicable detention standards.
PROTECTING
OUR BORDERS!
Our
government is too busy inviting the illegals here!
The
NEW privileged class, ILLEGALS
This
is why you work From Jan - May paying taxes to the government ....with the rest
of the calendar year is money for you and your family
If
they do not have privileges over the rest of the population I will eat my
shit..............
Take,
for example, an illegal alien with a wife and five children. He takes a job
for $5.00 or 6.00/hour. At that wage, with six dependents, he pays
no income tax, yet at the end of the year, if he files an Income Tax
Return, with his fake Social Security number, he gets an "earned
income credit" of up to $3,200..... free.
He
qualifies for Section 8 housing and subsidized rent.
He
qualifies for food stamps..
He
qualifies for free (no deductible, no
co-pay)
health care.
His
children get free breakfasts and lunches at school.
He
requires bilingual teachers and books.
He
qualifies for relief from high energy bills..
If
they are or become, aged, blind or disabled, they qualify for SSI. Once
qualified for SSI they can qualify for Medicare. All of this is at (our)
taxpayer's expense .
He
doesn't worry about car insurance, life insurance, or homeowners insurance.
Taxpayers
provide Spanish language signs, bulletins and printed material.
He
and his family receive the equivalent of $20.00 to $30.00/hour in benefits.
Working
Americans are lucky to have $5.00 or $6.00/hour left after Paying their
bills and his.
The
American taxpayers also pay for increased crime, graffiti and trash clean-up.
Cheap
labor? YEAH RIGHT! Wake up people!
No comments:
Post a Comment