Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

U.S. to Offer 1 yr of Care to Infants of Illegal Immigrants

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • U.S. to Offer 1 yr of Care to Infants of Illegal Immigrants

    The New York Times NATIONAL March 21, 2007
    U.S. to Offer Care to Infants of Illegal Immigrants
    By Robert Pear

    Washington, March 20 -- In a reversal, the Bush administration said Tuesday that babies born in the United States to illegal immigrants with low incomes could automatically qualifiy for one year of Medicaid coverage, just as babies born to United States citizens did.

    Federal officials dropped their insistence that illegal immigrants document the citizenship of the newborns. State officials, hospitals and pediatricians had said the requirement made no sense because, under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, people born in this country are United States citizens.

    The change came just 15 days after the State of Washington challenged the policy in a lawsuite. Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington welcomed the change.

    "The Constitution could not be more clear," Ms. Gregoire said. "Babies born in the United States are citizens, regardless of who their parents are."

    Ms. Gregoire said the original policy, adopted last July, would have delayed care for 8,000 "infant citizens" of her state. Washington State had argued that the federal policy denied "equal protection of the laws" to citizen children of illegal immigrants.

    Leslie V. Norwalk, acting administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said: "We have heaerd the concerns and are taking action to ensure that newborns in similar circumstances are treated the same under Medicaid eligibility rules. We intend to modify the documentation requirements to put all babies born in the United States whose deliveries arew covered by Medicaid on an equal footing."

    Illegal immigrants are generally barred from Medicaid, but can get coverage for treatment of emergency medical conditions, including labor and delivery.

    The policy change affects only infants. Adults and children over the age of 1 will still be subject to documentation requirements established by a 2006 law. To obtain or keep Medicaid, they must present birth certificates, passports or other documents proving citizenship and identity.

    Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who had introduced a bill to overturn the administration policy, said Tuesday that the reversal was "a positive step."

    Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, said: "I'm glad the administration has taken this small step to fix a problem that it created. But we have a long way to go before the larger issue of citizenship documentation is resolved.

  • #2
    The New York Times NATIONAL March 21, 2007
    U.S. to Offer Care to Infants of Illegal Immigrants
    By Robert Pear

    Washington, March 20 -- In a reversal, the Bush administration said Tuesday that babies born in the United States to illegal immigrants with low incomes could automatically qualifiy for one year of Medicaid coverage, just as babies born to United States citizens did.

    Federal officials dropped their insistence that illegal immigrants document the citizenship of the newborns. State officials, hospitals and pediatricians had said the requirement made no sense because, under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, people born in this country are United States citizens.

    The change came just 15 days after the State of Washington challenged the policy in a lawsuite. Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington welcomed the change.

    "The Constitution could not be more clear," Ms. Gregoire said. "Babies born in the United States are citizens, regardless of who their parents are."

    Ms. Gregoire said the original policy, adopted last July, would have delayed care for 8,000 "infant citizens" of her state. Washington State had argued that the federal policy denied "equal protection of the laws" to citizen children of illegal immigrants.

    Leslie V. Norwalk, acting administrator of the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said: "We have heaerd the concerns and are taking action to ensure that newborns in similar circumstances are treated the same under Medicaid eligibility rules. We intend to modify the documentation requirements to put all babies born in the United States whose deliveries arew covered by Medicaid on an equal footing."

    Illegal immigrants are generally barred from Medicaid, but can get coverage for treatment of emergency medical conditions, including labor and delivery.

    The policy change affects only infants. Adults and children over the age of 1 will still be subject to documentation requirements established by a 2006 law. To obtain or keep Medicaid, they must present birth certificates, passports or other documents proving citizenship and identity.

    Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, who had introduced a bill to overturn the administration policy, said Tuesday that the reversal was "a positive step."

    Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, said: "I'm glad the administration has taken this small step to fix a problem that it created. But we have a long way to go before the larger issue of citizenship documentation is resolved.

    Comment


    • #3
      <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">"The Constitution could not be more clear," </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

      Actually there is lack of clarity.

      Comment


      • #4
        Don't get me wrong - I believe in the Constitution and the rights of U.S. born citizens - we need to redefine who are US Citizens. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for illegal alien's children for a full year? That's just inviting more illegals to cross our boarders at a faster pace? Serious immigration reform needs to happen - no US citizenship to children born of illegal aliens. It's an easy out for the illegals crossing our borders on a daily basis and I'm SICK of it! Products of legal citizens = legal citizens. Products of illegals = not US citizen under any circumstance!

        Comment


        • #5
          Why is it that kids born in the USA from illegal parents automatically become american citizens. This is not the case in most european countries, u have to have ties, ie parents.

          Comment


          • #6
            Hi ntfd3,

            It's one of the Constitutional Rights that is seriously outdated (before the USA had such a problem). I believe the Constitution should be amended such that no child born in this country is automatically a USC unless at least one of their parents is a USC. I'm sure I'll hear serious debate on this, but that's okay because I am open to hear other sides.

            Comment


            • #7
              it seems an amendment to cover Slavery that was taken out of context.

              But here it is, something that needs to be included in any CIR.

              Comment


              • #8
                Do you understand the implications of what you are proposing?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Yeah, he/she thinks that a constitutional amendment can be done through LEGISLATION.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Houston, I am proposing that at least one parent of a child born in the USC be legal before the child inherits rights to receive benefits that are funded by law-abiding, tax-paying workers. Case in point, I was in the grocery store today, Mexicans in front of me paying with food stamps, the child was no older than three and didn't know a word of English! (I love kids - tried to talk to her). Yes, this child was probably a USC, but her parents weren't even allowing her to acclimate to our language because they could care less! They expect us to speak their language. Been to Miami lately? The street signs are in English/Spanish - the newspapers - try to find an English version. The airports - you have to listen to everything repeated in Spanish - how tiring can that be? I'm sorry - but I've had it - up to my ears in all this liberal acceptance of the illegals coming to this country! Maybe you don't mind your tax dollars going to support them, but with 2 kids in college, I very much care where mine are going.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      well, i mean not plain legislation as the CIR, because an exclusive bill (for constitutional amendment only) should be introduced and passed by 2/3rd by both chambers of congress and approved by 3/4th of the states (38 states); either by state convention or a vote by state legislature. the process normally takes seven (7) years.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I try to keep issues separated. I don't believe in going after the children to "cut costs" when you have oil companies with huge relief packages making record profits and tons of money going towards the construction of railroads and other infrastructure in foreign nations. Children are powerless when it comes to their fate, and I wouldn't make things worse by eliminating the few benefits and protections are already given to them by law.

                        The issue of "adaptation" I've said is a completely different matter. I don't believe in bilingual education, I don't believe in changing the words of the national anthem, I don't believe in multi-lingual forms, I don't believe in free interpreters and free translation services. It's a known fact that this is an English speaking country, there's nothing preventing an immigrant from learning. Again, learning doesn't involve hardship and there's plenty of charity groups offering free basic English classes.
                        If the child you describe is a USC, then the parents are preventing the child, a USC, from learning about his or her own country, hindering the development of the child. The parents, and not the child, should be responsible. This is why strongly believe in declaring English the official language of the land, with maybe a carve-out for indian reservations. In the case you presented, the system shouldn't conform to the person; there's no real obstacle preventing the mother from asking a friend to translate for her. This is not a critical matter and we all know that in every immigrant community there's people who speak both languages always willing to lend a hand.

                        Comment



                        Working...
                        X