TX can deny birth cert to us born kids of immigrants

[heyjude]

Judge: Texas can deny birth certificates for U.S.-born children of some immigrants - LA Times

A federal judge ruled Friday that Texas officials can continue to deny U.S. birth certificates to the children of immigrants who cannot supply required identification because they entered the country illegally.

Though children born in the United States are entitled by law to U.S. citizenship regardless of the immigration status of their parents, Texas authorities have been placing significant barriers to immigrants who have entered the country illegally and are seeking birth certificates for their U.S.-born children.

In his ruling denying an emergency order sought by families, Judge Robert L. Pitman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio said Texas officials can refuse to accept matricula consular cards, issued by Mexican consulates, as a form of identification to obtain birth certificates for U.S.-born children.

“While the Court is very troubled at the prospect of Texas-born children, and their parents, being denied issuance of a birth certificate,” Pitman wrote, “Texas has a clear interest in protecting access to that document.”

Although Pitman noted the families’ attorneys had “provided evidence which raises grave concerns regarding the treatment of citizen children born to immigrant parents,” he said the court needed more evidence before issuing the emergency injunction they had sought.

The case comes at a time when birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants, enshrined in the Constitution, has been challenged by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and other conservatives.

Republican Texas Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton praised the ruling as “an important first step in ensuring the integrity of birth certificates and personal identity information.”

“Before issuing any official documents, it’s important for the state to have a way to accurately verify people are who they say they are through reliable identification mechanisms,” Paxton said in a statement.

Paxton vowed to continue defending the state’s “policy on safeguarding Texans’ most sensitive information and vital documents.”

More than two dozen immigrant parents in South Texas sued the state this year on behalf of 32 children they claim had been denied birth certificates and access to vital services.

The lead attorney for the children, Jennifer Harbury of Texas RioGrande Legal Aid Inc., said their families understood the judge’s decision but worry about the safety of their children in the interim.

“Without their birth certificates, they are having difficulty gaining access to basic services, including school and medical care,” Harbury said Friday.

“Texas must allow a clear path for all children born in this country to gain access to birth certificates and their full rights as citizens. It may not establish an obstacle course for these children alone.”

Follow me for the latest in national news @mollyhf

[taratru]

Ya know, I thought I was clean out of rage. Turns out I'm not.

[Deleted]

That is some bullshit. I don't even get how it is constitutional.

[miniroller]

Its the twenty-first century!!!!!! GAH!!!!!!
(I'm obviously struggling for words to properly describe my disgust)

[anastasia517]

And you just know that a couple of white parents who entered the country illegally will have fewer issues registering their baby than POC will.

[gpw]

I don't understand how this is going to survive constitutional muster.

ETA:  And even if it doesn't survive the Supreme Court, the time it will take to get it there will hurt so many children. 

[rupertpenny]

What the fuck. This is truly shameful. They are essentially creating people who don't exist on paper. How is that good for anyone?

[ESF]

If there were any doubts, this should settle them. Fifth Circuit opinion will probably come next summer, so birthright citizenship is officially an election issue.

Bye bye, GOP.

[heyjude]

This judge was just appointed in 2014 by Obama.

[gpw]

Wait. So they can't get medical care, so they can't get vaccinated? Unless it's OOP?

Well, THAT seems like a good idea.

[gpw]

Oct 17, 2015 11:54:21 GMT -5 heyjude said:

This judge was just appointed in 2014 by Obama.

Wow.  

[ESF]

Wait, the article leaves out something really, really important.

The judge denied a request for an injunction. That made me realize that this was probably a preliminary hearing. Read this:

thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/10/federal-judge-calls-for-a-full-hearing-on-birth-certificate-issue-for-texas-born-children.html/

This isn't a done deal. The judge just said that in the basis of the papers before him, he wasn't going to issue a preliminary injunction ordering them to issue birth certificates until a trial or evidentiary hearing could be held.

Preliminary injunctions are pretty hard to get. Let's see what happens in a couple months.

[pinkdutchtulips]

Oct 17, 2015 11:28:42 GMT -5 CheeringCharm said:

That is some bullshit. I don't even get how it is constitutional.

blatant violation of the 14th amendment. i see a SCOTUS battle looming.

citizenship isn't one of those things that are under the 10th amendment umbrella. no the Constitution is pretty clear on this one. 

[gpw]

Oct 17, 2015 12:00:42 GMT -5 ESF said:

Wait, the article leaves out something really, really important.

The judge denied a request for an injunction. That made me realize that this was probably a preliminary hearing. Read this:

thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/10/federal-judge-calls-for-a-full-hearing-on-birth-certificate-issue-for-texas-born-children.html/

This isn't a done deal. The judge just said that in the basis of the papers before him, he wasn't going to issue a preliminary injunction ordering them to issue birth certificates until a trial or evidentiary hearing could be held.

Preliminary injunctions are pretty hard to get. Let's see what happens in a couple months.

Well.  That's better, but a couple months could make a big difference for kids going un-vaccinated.  

Once again, it seems that TX hasn't thought something all the way through to its logical conclusion. 

[pixy0stix]

Oct 17, 2015 11:54:21 GMT -5 heyjude said:

This judge was just appointed in 2014 by Obama.

This doesn't surprise me. His administration has been harsh on immigration. More so than any presidency before him. 

As far as TX goes, I guess all amendments except for the 2nd are just suggestions.

[ESF]

Oct 17, 2015 12:07:27 GMT -5 gpw said:

Oct 17, 2015 12:00:42 GMT -5 ESF said:

Wait, the article leaves out something really, really important.

The judge denied a request for an injunction. That made me realize that this was probably a preliminary hearing. Read this:

thescoopblog.dallasnews.com/2015/10/federal-judge-calls-for-a-full-hearing-on-birth-certificate-issue-for-texas-born-children.html/

This isn't a done deal. The judge just said that in the basis of the papers before him, he wasn't going to issue a preliminary injunction ordering them to issue birth certificates until a trial or evidentiary hearing could be held.

Preliminary injunctions are pretty hard to get. Let's see what happens in a couple months.

Well.  That's better, but a couple months could make a big difference for kids going un-vaccinated.  

Once again, it seems that TX hasn't thought something all the way through to its logical conclusion. 

We have no idea if the vaccination issue issue was raised to the court. In the article I posted, it suggested that the court would probably side with the plaintiffs in the end, but they hadn't met the requirements to obtain a preliminary injunction. The standards are really very high and appellate courts have a lot of power to throw them out.

Given that this is a brand new judge, I'm really not surprised he's so cautious. No judge wants to get a reputation as a loose cannon. A more established one that has earned the respect of the appellate court might have been more willing to take a risk. Had he prematurely stopped the state and gotten reversed, his final decision - the one that matters - would have been even more suspect.

I'm not saying this is a good outcome, but there are a lot of facts here that suggest to me that the judge was playing by the book and his decision making was sound.

[mouse]

I'm not debating that this is outrageous and gross, when it comes to immigration in this country I assume that's the starting point anyway.

But can someone "like I'm 5" it for me so I can discuss it intelligently?

What does "refuse to issue" mean?
- are they refusing to create a legal record of these children at all?
- or refusing to hand it over to the parents in some misguided attempt to keep them from... (what? from my understanding having a citizen child is not a direct path to citizenship, so I'm guessing this is ignorant paranoia)

Do these geniuses think these children are automatically Mexican by virtue of their skin color? I'm not sure about Mexico, but not every country immediately naturalizes children of citizens. Do they realize the implications of a stateless population? Or do they just not care? (I don't mean so much your average trump supporter, but there are lawyers and other presumably knowledgable people involved.)

[gpw]

Oct 17, 2015 12:28:17 GMT -5 mouse said:

I'm not debating that this is outrageous and gross, when it comes to immigration in this country I assume that's the starting point anyway.

But can someone "like I'm 5" it for me so I can discuss it intelligently?

What does "refuse to issue" mean?
- are they refusing to create a legal record of these children at all?
- or refusing to hand it over to the parents in some misguided attempt to keep them from... (what? from my understanding having a citizen child is not a direct path to citizenship, so I'm guessing this is ignorant paranoia)

Do these geniuses think these children are automatically Mexican by virtue of their skin color? I'm not sure about Mexico, but not every country immediately naturalizes children of citizens. Do they realize the implications of a stateless population? Or do they just not care? (I don't mean so much your average trump supporter, but there are lawyers and other presumably knowledgable people involved.)

I can answer this one.  It is not a direct path to citizenship.  If the child was born pre November whenever the President issued his Executive Order, and the parents don't have criminal records and they meet all the other requirements, they would be eligible for what is known as DAPA.  My understanding is that DAPA merely puts these people in a holding pattern and does not deport them.  It does not grant them citizenship.  Children of illegal immigrants can apply for green cards for their parents when they turn 21 (18 if you're in the military -- I think those are the right numbers).  HOWEVER, when doing this they need to agree to be a sponsor, or find someone will to be a sponsor.  A sponsor is someone who effectively says that the beneficiary will not become a financial burden on the country and has to prove financially that they can be supportive. There are federal poverty guidelines one must be above to be able to be a sponsor. 

[mouse]

Oct 17, 2015 12:35:06 GMT -5 gpw said:

Oct 17, 2015 12:28:17 GMT -5 mouse said:

I'm not debating that this is outrageous and gross, when it comes to immigration in this country I assume that's the starting point anyway.

But can someone "like I'm 5" it for me so I can discuss it intelligently?

What does "refuse to issue" mean?
- are they refusing to create a legal record of these children at all?
- or refusing to hand it over to the parents in some misguided attempt to keep them from... (what? from my understanding having a citizen child is not a direct path to citizenship, so I'm guessing this is ignorant paranoia)

Do these geniuses think these children are automatically Mexican by virtue of their skin color? I'm not sure about Mexico, but not every country immediately naturalizes children of citizens. Do they realize the implications of a stateless population? Or do they just not care? (I don't mean so much your average trump supporter, but there are lawyers and other presumably knowledgable people involved.)

I can answer this one.  It is not a direct path to citizenship.  If the child was born pre November whenever the President issued his Executive Order, and the parents don't have criminal records and they meet all the other requirements, they would be eligible for what is known as DAPA.  My understanding is that DAPA merely puts these people in a holding pattern and does not deport them.  It does not grant them citizenship.  Children of illegal immigrants can apply for green cards for their parents when they turn 21 (18 if you're in the military -- I think those are the right numbers).  HOWEVER, when doing this they need to agree to be a sponsor, or find someone will to be a sponsor.  A sponsor is someone who effectively says that the beneficiary will not become a financial burden on the country and has to prove financially that they can be supportive. There are federal poverty guidelines one must be above to be able to be a sponsor. 

Thanks! I remember when Iraq war widows were being deported, it sounded like their pregnancies and citizen children didn't factor in at all.

And that was under Bush. I'm not sure how much more anti-immigration you can get than to deport women whose husbands made the ultimate sacrifice for this country.

[gpw]

Oct 17, 2015 13:01:25 GMT -5 amber said:

Oct 17, 2015 12:28:17 GMT -5 mouse said:

I'm not debating that this is outrageous and gross, when it comes to immigration in this country I assume that's the starting point anyway.

But can someone "like I'm 5" it for me so I can discuss it intelligently?

What does "refuse to issue" mean?
- are they refusing to create a legal record of these children at all?
- or refusing to hand it over to the parents in some misguided attempt to keep them from... (what? from my understanding having a citizen child is not a direct path to citizenship, so I'm guessing this is ignorant paranoia)

Do these geniuses think these children are automatically Mexican by virtue of their skin color? I'm not sure about Mexico, but not every country immediately naturalizes children of citizens. Do they realize the implications of a stateless population? Or do they just not care? (I don't mean so much your average trump supporter, but there are lawyers and other presumably knowledgable people involved.)

Being born in the usa makes you an instant U.S. citizen. This was put in the constitution way back to account for slaves children. People like Trump argue this is an archaic law that is no longer necessary and is being exploited by other countries citizens, like Mexicans and Chinese. Along the Mexican border, there is a huge number of people coming across the border illegally and having their children. The baby is then a U.S. citizen and gets all the benefits- at the cost to the state. The states are like, 'we can't afford this.' And the federal gov't isn't helping. The mother can stay to raise her U.S. citizen child.

Not sure that was the answers to her questions, lol.  

FWIW, mouse I *presume* (which I probably shouldn't) that they are not refusing to make a legal record, just not documenting it in a way so that a child can get certain benefits.  

[mouse]

Oct 17, 2015 13:01:25 GMT -5 amber said:

Oct 17, 2015 12:28:17 GMT -5 mouse said:

I'm not debating that this is outrageous and gross, when it comes to immigration in this country I assume that's the starting point anyway.

But can someone "like I'm 5" it for me so I can discuss it intelligently?

What does "refuse to issue" mean?
- are they refusing to create a legal record of these children at all?
- or refusing to hand it over to the parents in some misguided attempt to keep them from... (what? from my understanding having a citizen child is not a direct path to citizenship, so I'm guessing this is ignorant paranoia)

Do these geniuses think these children are automatically Mexican by virtue of their skin color? I'm not sure about Mexico, but not every country immediately naturalizes children of citizens. Do they realize the implications of a stateless population? Or do they just not care? (I don't mean so much your average trump supporter, but there are lawyers and other presumably knowledgable people involved.)

Being born in the usa makes you an instant U.S. citizen. This was put in the constitution way back to account for slaves children. People like Trump argue this is an archaic law that is no longer necessary and is being exploited by other countries citizens, like Mexicans and Chinese. Along the Mexican border, there is a huge number of people coming across the border illegally and having their children. The baby is then a U.S. citizen and gets all the benefits- at the cost to the state. The states are like, 'we can't afford this.' And the federal gov't isn't helping. The mother can stay to raise her U.S. citizen child.

Yes, I know they are automatically citizens. Except for the trump yahoos who don't think they should be. And apparently these lovely folks who are denying them documentation of that citizenship. I'm just wondering what their end game is.

ETA: and yes, citizens cost the country in services. You don't get to pick and choose on that one.

Also, illegal immigrants pay out for SS and so on that they'll never see. But for some reason people don't bitch about that one.

[WanderingWinoZ]

who are these officials?? are they like county clerks (a la that idiot lady that refused gay marraige licenses??)

I'll pay attention in 3 weeks wheN I have a kid & see whta paperwork I need to fill out. If it includes my & DH's citizenship...I'm wondering how these people are making this (arbitrary) decisions???

[WanderingWinoZ]

i just spent 20 min trying to figure out how BC are issues in Texas or in my county. I can only find info about ordering a copy. I felt like it was automatic when DD1 was born at the hospital last year. I'm sure there was paperwork, but are the hospitals not submitting the paperwork???


If you go there- the form you fill out only asks for parents "place of birth" I don't see that it's verified anywhere, so why not just put "Texas" even if you were born in Mexico??
womens.memorialhermann.org/labor-delivery/birth-certificate-information/

[Cicero]

Oct 17, 2015 13:01:25 GMT -5 amber said:

Oct 17, 2015 12:28:17 GMT -5 mouse said:

I'm not debating that this is outrageous and gross, when it comes to immigration in this country I assume that's the starting point anyway.

But can someone "like I'm 5" it for me so I can discuss it intelligently?

What does "refuse to issue" mean?
- are they refusing to create a legal record of these children at all?
- or refusing to hand it over to the parents in some misguided attempt to keep them from... (what? from my understanding having a citizen child is not a direct path to citizenship, so I'm guessing this is ignorant paranoia)

Do these geniuses think these children are automatically Mexican by virtue of their skin color? I'm not sure about Mexico, but not every country immediately naturalizes children of citizens. Do they realize the implications of a stateless population? Or do they just not care? (I don't mean so much your average trump supporter, but there are lawyers and other presumably knowledgable people involved.)

Being born in the usa makes you an instant U.S. citizen. .

This isn't 100% true. The 14th Amendment requires that you be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. to be a citzen by virtue of your birth on US soil--so a child born to someone with diplomatic immunity is not a US citizen unless s/he qualifies through blood (other parent is a US citizen) even if they happen to be born in NY or DC or wherever.

[StrawberryBlondie]

I have no words. None.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Oct 17, 2015 13:24:31 GMT -5 Cicero said:

Oct 17, 2015 13:01:25 GMT -5 amber said:

Being born in the usa makes you an instant U.S. citizen. .

This isn't 100% true. The 14th Amendment requires that you be subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. to be a vitizen by virtue of your birth on US soil--so a child born to someone with diplomatic immunity is not a US citizen unless s/he qualifies through blood (other parent is a US citizen) even if they happen to be born in NY or DC or wherever.

Huh. I did not know this.

[turboteal]

Oct 17, 2015 13:22:32 GMT -5 WanderingWinoZ said:

i just spent 20 min trying to figure out how BC are issues in Texas or in my county. I can only find info about ordering a copy. I felt like it was automatic when DD1 was born at the hospital last year. I'm sure there was paperwork, but are the hospitals not submitting the paperwork???


If you go there- the form you fill out only asks for parents "place of birth" I don't see that it's verified anywhere, so why not just put "Texas" even if you were born in Mexico??
womens.memorialhermann.org/labor-delivery/birth-certificate-information/

I heard about this on the Texas Standard last week. I think they are not being sent out from the issuing office, and I think this is an issue only in certain counties.

In my hospital, we give the paperwork to the parents to fill out, then it is processed by a couple birth certificate staff who send it in to the place that issues it (office of vital statistics? something like that). The certificate is mailed to the parents around a month or so later. I'm guessing that's where the process is being blocked in those certain counties, and then they are also refusing to issue it if the parents come in requesting it.

[secretlyevil]

Oct 17, 2015 11:28:42 GMT -5 CheeringCharm said:

That is some bullshit. I don't even get how it is constitutional.

this is my question.

[Deleted]

Oct 17, 2015 13:22:32 GMT -5 WanderingWinoZ said:

i just spent 20 min trying to figure out how BC are issues in Texas or in my county. I can only find info about ordering a copy. I felt like it was automatic when DD1 was born at the hospital last year. I'm sure there was paperwork, but are the hospitals not submitting the paperwork???


If you go there- the form you fill out only asks for parents "place of birth" I don't see that it's verified anywhere, so why not just put "Texas" even if you were born in Mexico??
womens.memorialhermann.org/labor-delivery/birth-certificate-information/

I have homebirths, so have experience with filling out the actual birth certificate forms. The forms we had to use in Ohio were lengthy - at least 13 pages - and cover everything from social security number to educational background of parents to medical info. I never filled anything like that out with my hospital births, so I assume that info is takrn from the lengthy interview when you check into the hospital and all of your medical charts.

Getting the birth certificate yourself is a huge PITA and inevitably ends up with my DH getting upset because people at the office have no idea how to handle these forms when non-hospital personnel complete them. It's like a game of 2000 questions.

Eta - you also have to show proof of residency when turning in the forms.

[heyjude]

It looks like they are saying the Mexican issued ID is not valid for purposes of determining identification. So only the Mexican ID is no good? Uh huh. I'm guessing American kids born to Canadian parents have fine IDs. Sounds like an equal protection issue.