Hey Constitutional Originalists ...

[BeecherVol]

That is one of the funniest/saddest things I've ever read here.

Do I really need to explain to you the GLARING mathematical errors in your comment?

Please do.

 

[lawgator1]

does it in any way validate your argument?

His post, you mean?

Of course not.

But he attacked my position collaterally with nonsensical mathematical gibberish claiming he was giving my post context when in reality he was spewing utter sewage.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

If only we had good lawyers today, who really understood the "intent" of the law, like we did in the late 1800's...

In 1898, in the landmark Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the San Francisco lawyers who argued that WKA, who was born in San Francisco should not be considered a U.S. citizen, made this the central argument of their case:

”For the most persuasive reasons we have refused citizenship to Chinese subjects; and yet, as to their offspring, who are just as obnoxious, and to whom the same reasons for exclusion apply with equal force, we are told that we must accept them as fellow-citizens, and that, too, because of the mere accident of birth. There certainly should be some honor and dignity in American citizenship that would be sacred from the foul and corrupting taint of a debasing lineage.

Are Chinese children born in this country to share with the descendants of the patriots of the American Revolution the exalted qualification of being eligible to the Presidency of the nation, conferred by the Constitution in recognition of the importance and dignity of citizenship by birth?”

 

[lawgator1]

Based on that finding, at least 13,000 American children have seen one or both parents deported in the past two years after round-ups in factories and neighborhoods. The figures are expected to grow. Over all, about 3.1 million American children have at least one parent who is an illegal immigrant, according to a widely accepted estimate by the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington.

If my math is right, thats 0.04% that have been deported with a child as a legal citizen.

Do I really need to explain to you the GLARING mathematical errors in your comment?

Please do.

Sigh. Okay.

First, the number of 13,000 is the number that were deported in ONE YEAR, which was 2006. The 3.1 million number is the total number of kids who have an illegal immigrant parent.

1) You cannot divide one into the other in order to conclude what the rate is for deporting immigrants back across the entire 3.1 million.

2) You cannot divide one into the other to determine what percentage are sent back in a given year, either.

3) In fact, you cannot conclude ANYTHING from dividing one into the other because the number you need to know is how many in 2006 were caught to begin with. If you could divide 13,000 illegal immigrant parents sent back into the total number of illegal immigrant parents caught THAT year then you might have a basis for comparison.

As is, your math is absolutely horrid, your conclusions based on your math meritless, and you should have to recite some Hail Mary's or do some community service or something.

 

[BeecherVol]

Sigh. Okay.

First, the number of 13,000 is the number that were deported in ONE YEAR, which was 2006. The 3.1 million number is the total number of kids who have an illegal immigrant parent.

1) You cannot divide one into the other in order to conclude what the rate is for deporting immigrants back across the entire 3.1 million.

2) You cannot divide one into the other to determine what percentage are sent back in a given year, either.

3) In fact, you cannot conclude ANYTHING from dividing one into the other because the number you need to know is how many in 2006 were caught to begin with. If you could divide 13,000 illegal immigrant parents sent back into the total number of illegal immigrant parents caught THAT year then you might have a basis for comparison.

As is, your math is absolutely horrid, your conclusions based on your math meritless, and you should have to recite some Hail Mary's or do some community service or something.

Thanks for the explanation.:hi:

 

[BeecherVol]

Sigh. Okay.

First, the number of 13,000 is the number that were deported in ONE YEAR, which was 2006. The 3.1 million number is the total number of kids who have an illegal immigrant parent.

1) You cannot divide one into the other in order to conclude what the rate is for deporting immigrants back across the entire 3.1 million.

2) You cannot divide one into the other to determine what percentage are sent back in a given year, either.

3) In fact, you cannot conclude ANYTHING from dividing one into the other because the number you need to know is how many in 2006 were caught to begin with. If you could divide 13,000 illegal immigrant parents sent back into the total number of illegal immigrant parents caught THAT year then you might have a basis for comparison.

As is, your math is absolutely horrid, your conclusions based on your math meritless, and you should have to recite some Hail Mary's or do some community service or something.

I did have a question, (if I can get an answer without all the other slurs)

What does "caught" mean? Are they legal if not caught?

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Lg... perhaps, as a lawyer, you could help us understand how to prove intent, because that is the proof you are asking for.

Intent is a mental attitude with which an individual acts, and therefore it cannot ordinarily be directly proved but must be inferred from surrounding facts and circumstances. Intent refers only to the state of mind with which the act is done or omitted. It differs from motive, which is what prompts a person to act or to fail to act.

I have seen numerous posts offering reasonable motive, and certainly inferred intent, but you keep asking for proof of "anchor babies" which implies the intent of the parent. How would a good lawyer go about proving that?

 

[utvolpj]

Sigh. Okay.

First, the number of 13,000 is the number that were deported in ONE YEAR, which was 2006. The 3.1 million number is the total number of kids who have an illegal immigrant parent.

1) You cannot divide one into the other in order to conclude what the rate is for deporting immigrants back across the entire 3.1 million.

2) You cannot divide one into the other to determine what percentage are sent back in a given year, either.

3) In fact, you cannot conclude ANYTHING from dividing one into the other because the number you need to know is how many in 2006 were caught to begin with. If you could divide 13,000 illegal immigrant parents sent back into the total number of illegal immigrant parents caught THAT year then you might have a basis for comparison.

As is, your math is absolutely horrid, your conclusions based on your math meritless, and you should have to recite some Hail Mary's or do some community service or something.

this is really pretty ignorant (and insulting) for a self-proclaimed math genius. The numbers are there. Sure the % may be off a few points but it pokes serious holes into your argument. No wonder you're so defensive

 

[lawgator1]

I did have a question, (if I can get an answer without all the other slurs)

What does "caught" mean? Are they legal if not caught?

Ha!

No, of course I don't mean its only illegal if they get caught. What I meant was only that you can't say they sent back 13,000 OF 3.1 million because you are comparing apples to oranges with those particular numbers.

I'd be curious if you could find the total number caught in 2006 for comparison to the 13,000. Remember, though, that has to be caught that ARE PARENTS of a child born in the U.S. because that is the 13,000 number. The whole number of illegal immigrants for 2006 won't help us.

 

[lawgator1]

this is really pretty ignorant (and insulting) for a self-proclaimed math genius. The numbers are there. Sure the % may be off a few points but it pokes serious holes into your argument. No wonder you're so defensive

First, I'm kind of teasing him a little. I think even he got that.

Second, its going to be off a whole lot more than a few percentage points.

To know the rate of return for 2006 you need to know the number of illegal immigrants parents who were caught in 2006 and then the number of those deported.

We have the latter (13,000), but not the former. Substituting the total number of illegal immigrant parents in the U.S. (3.1million) for that number is crazy talk.

 

[utvolpj]

We have the latter (13,000), but not the former. Substituting the total number of illegal immigrant parents in the U.S. (3.1million) for that number is crazy talk.

he said the 3.1mil is the total number of US kids with an illegal parent. It may be 2006 apples to 2010 apples but it's still there

 

[BeecherVol]

Ha!

No, of course I don't mean its only illegal if they get caught. What I meant was only that you can't say they sent back 13,000 OF 3.1 million because you are comparing apples to oranges with those particular numbers.

I'd be curious if you could find the total number caught in 2006 for comparison to the 13,000. Remember, though, that has to be caught that ARE PARENTS of a child born in the U.S. because that is the 13,000 number. The whole number of illegal immigrants for 2006 won't help us.

Im not sure that you could necessarily.

When the child is born are the parents required to give documentation for its citizenship papers or birth certificate?

Its been 4 years since my last daughter was born, IIRC they required our SSNs for the birth certificate.

 

[BeecherVol]

I realize at this point in the law, the child is a citizen no matter the status of his parents, but they got the 3.1 mil from somewhere.

 

[fl0at]

Why is law right?

Because there have been examples of parents removed. Many examples, in fact.

I hardly think this supports droski. According to the article, 13,000 parents were sent back in 2006. Also, according to the article, most parents end up taking their child back home with them, even if under the 14th Amendment the child can stay.

You didn't ask which one was statistically more likely, you asked if it occurred. You also didn't ask length of time remaining; and 6 months is 6 months.

Details, details, details. If a child influences the process, then there is an obvious disconnect.

As stated earlier, a ship at anchor may still move, just slowly. The anchor baby theory has an iota of evidence to suggest that it can be delayed (moved slowly) by as much as 6 months.

 

[fl0at]

I realize at this point in the law, the child is a citizen no matter the status of his parents, but they got the 3.1 mil from somewhere.

The 3.1 mil is an estimate. You could essentially take X amount of hospitals in the US (probably better to use border states and higher estimated populations of illegal immigrants) and determine how many children were born to known illegal immigrants per year and after some hand waiving, come up with a number.

I don't think the percentage thing quite works, either. The odds of us knowing where the parents of the 3.1 mil children are, and even who they are, is probably quite low... especially since we are just making an educated guess of how many there are.

We do deport illegal parents, and place the children under foster care. I'm not sure why we would want to shy away from that label. We do the same thing when we put someone in prison. Don't want to lose your child, don't break the law... why we gotta be anti this concept?

 

[gasguy98]

Droski's already made that argument and I'm rather in agreement, the constitution as written and the BOR (all ratified in 1791) is the basic docuement. The rest has been tacked on (or even off) in piecemeal fashion.

As for the rest of it I think in general your philosophical divide is pretty well stated. What's muddying the waters in this case is the fact we're talking about the issue's predication on illegal activity. Quite simply, in my mind anyway, the fact their parents are here illegally makes them de facto illegal and the 14th has no business applying for no other reason than that.

Give that man a cigar!

 

[fl0at]

Give that man a cigar!

 

[BeecherVol]

The 3.1 mil is an estimate. You could essentially take X amount of hospitals in the US (probably better to use border states and higher estimated populations of illegal immigrants) and determine how many children were born to known illegal immigrants per year and after some hand waiving, come up with a number.

I don't think the percentage thing quite works, either. The odds of us knowing where the parents of the 3.1 mil children are, and even who they are, is probably quite low... especially since we are just making an educated guess of how many there are.

We do deport illegal parents, and place the children under foster care. I'm not sure why we would want to shy away from that label. We do the same thing when we put someone in prison. Don't want to lose your child, don't break the law... why we gotta be anti this concept?

Other places have it at 5 mil. "estimated" currently. And "estimate" that 100k have been deported in the last 10 years.

What I got from LG was, if they were not "caught", there was no way on knowing how many were not deported. Which is understandable in a way.

The fact that at the time the were "estimated" to be 3.1 mil. (which is not hard to believe considering the number of total illegals that are here) deporting 13k in one year, is not very many.

 

[BeecherVol]

The 3.1 mil is an estimate. You could essentially take X amount of hospitals in the US (probably better to use border states and higher estimated populations of illegal immigrants) and determine how many children were born to known illegal immigrants per year and after some hand waiving, come up with a number.

I don't think the percentage thing quite works, either. The odds of us knowing where the parents of the 3.1 mil children are, and even who they are, is probably quite low... especially since we are just making an educated guess of how many there are.

We do deport illegal parents, and place the children under foster care. I'm not sure why we would want to shy away from that label. We do the same thing when we put someone in prison. Don't want to lose your child, don't break the law... why we gotta be anti this concept?

I know that we do. The point being made was that as hard as it is to deport anyway, this made it more difficult. I still believe that.

 

[fl0at]

I know that we do. The point being made was that as hard as it is to deport anyway, this made it more difficult. I still believe that.

Ahhh. Then yes, you are correct. Actually resulted in different policy write ups and guidelines. Yada, yada. But, in the end, I'd say the vast majority of raided illegals were repatriated.

The key would be the word "raided." I'm not sure the requirement in medicine to report illegal immigrant status, and how quickly the follow up would be anyway.

So, I would say that in most cases, in order to be deported, the individual would have to be caught, not reported. And I take "caught" to mean that ICE raided a place, or background checks by a Federal agency were done, or someone was found to be committing SS fraud, and a Fed followed up on the individual.

Also, PEW's stats are in this PDF, I think:
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf

 

[BeecherVol]

Ahhh. Then yes, you are correct. Actually resulted in different policy write ups and guidelines. Yada, yada. But, in the end, I'd say the vast majority of raided illegals were repatriated.

The key would be the word "raided." I'm not sure the requirement in medicine to report illegal immigrant status, and how quickly the follow up would be anyway.

So, I would say that in most cases, in order to be deported, the individual would have to be caught, not reported. And I take "caught" to mean that ICE raided a place, or background checks by a Federal agency were done, or someone was found to be committing SS fraud, and a Fed followed up on the individual.

Also, PEW's stats are in this PDF, I think:
http://pewhispanic.org/files/reports/61.pdf

That was the word he used.

That was why I asked later, if the parents have the kid at a hospital are they required to provide SSNs for the birth certificate or citizenship docs. If so, the numbers should be fairly accurate.

And unless we are waiting for a criminal infraction by the parents (past crossing the border illegally) would that be considered "caught"? at least to the point of checking out.

 

[fl0at]

The fact that at the time the were "estimated" to be 3.1 mil. (which is not hard to believe considering the number of total illegals that are here) deporting 13k in one year, is not very many.

Depends on how many of those 13k had multiple children. If all of those 13k were only the mothers, and each had 100 children, then we got em all... Far fetched, I know, but humor can some times demonstrate the fallibility of a statistical point.

If we deported 13,000 of 13,500 known parents, then I'd say we got a large number of them. The point LG was making, that you acknowledged, was that unless we know how many were up for deportation, that 13,000 is difficult to use as evidence to suggest that we aren't deporting many.

Now, we could probably say that of 3.1 million children, we have only found and deported ~13k in 2005/6ish. But that would establish our efficiency, not necessary the ratio of those allowed to stay vs those repatriated.

Our efficiency sucks, period. Our success rate is undetermined, however.

 

[fl0at]

That was the word he used.

That was why I asked later, if the parents have the kid at a hospital are they required to provide SSNs for the birth certificate or citizenship docs. If so, the numbers should be fairly accurate.

And unless we are waiting for a criminal infraction by the parents (past crossing the border illegally) would that be considered "caught"? at least to the point of checking out.

I'm not sure what word he used. I normally just read them in passing.

I'm not sure if the parent is required to provide a SSN in order to fill out a birth certificate. And even if they were required, nothing stops them from just making one up on the spot. Most hospitals don't go through the trouble of doing a background check prior to delivery.

As I don't have children, I can't say with any certainty that an SSN is required to fill out a birth certificate for another individual, as the SSN given to the newborn is determined at a level above that of the hospital and its staff.

Give me about (2) years and I'll come back and answer this question with some first hand experience.

As to waiting for an illegal to have an infraction, I think that tends to be the SOP. Routine traffic stop might not result in detention, though.

I would consider one to be "caught," only when there is Federal involvement. A local LEO might make a stop, make an arrest, place the individual in custody and before ICE arrives, the individual might post bail and skip town. Hypothetical situation of course, but once again, unless they are in Federal custody, I don't consider them "caught."

And I would wager that once they make Federal custody, barring any legal entanglements, they are probably repatriated as quickly as able.

 

[BeecherVol]

As I stated before, for the amount we have let in over the years (which is an issue in and of itself) our deportation rate is ridiculous, and this only makes it harder IMO.

This was my biggest grip with GWB.

 

[rmsmith]

I hope this passes