Suit says Texas denying birth certificates to undocumented immigrants

Civil rights groups are apparently accusing Texas of not issuing birth certificates to children born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants.

Seems like there's quite a few Plaintiffs.

It must be a conspiracy.

Suit says Texas denying birth certificates to undocumented immigrants

Two civil rights groups are suing the state of Texas, alleging authorities are denying birth certificates to children of undocumented immigrants born in the United States in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The lawsuit was originally filed in May by the Texas Civil Rights Project and Texas Rio Grande Legal Aid. It was amended Tuesday so that the civil rights groups could represent "a large number of plaintiffs."

The lawsuit originally included six families as plaintiffs. The number as of Tuesday was 17, and the civil rights groups say they're getting ready to represent many more families.

a reply to: xuenchen

Isn't this a law in every state?

This is a crazy story. I can't wait to see the outcome.

Thanks for posting this. I thought I read a Thread yesterday on here about it. But it must have been this article.


I guess this could have something to do with it.

www.cnn.com...

I believe the Constitution requires that Texas issue those birth certificates. While I agree with the sentiment of withholding those birth certificates from people attempting to take advantage of our laws by having their 'anchor babies'; I can't pick and choose which parts of the Constitution I support and those I don't. I WAN'T to support Texas, but can't in this instance.

a reply to: xuenchen

I wish that Texas reasoning would spread to 49 other states.

a reply to: Metallicus

Sounds familiar.

They also pick and choose what to follow from the bible.

a reply to: Metallicus

Maybe I am not understanding this correctly.

Arn't they denied the Birth Certificates because they have the improper paperwork. Paperwork that can not be validated due to confirmation that the documents are authentic?

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: xuenchen

I wish that Texas reasoning would spread to 49 other states.

So do I!

Sólo deseo que todos los carteles y ATS gustaría publicar sus pensamientos en español para que pudiera entender.
Usted racistas del mal!

originally posted by: crappiekat
a reply to: Metallicus

Maybe I am not understanding this correctly.

Arn't they denied the Birth Certificates because they have the improper paperwork. Paperwork that can not be validated due to confirmation that the documents are authentic?

They shouldn't have to have to have any paperwork. If the child is born in the country then it is a citizen of this country that is what the Constitution says so Texas can go F itself.

originally posted by: buster2010

They shouldn't have to have to have any paperwork. If the child is born in the country then it is a citizen of this country that is what the Constitution says so Texas can go F itself.

Where does it actually say that in the Constitution?

a reply to: buster2010

The Constitution has been amended 27 times.

www.minnpost.com...

This it why it is called "A living Document"

We are an evolving Nation.

I don't think this case is nearly as simple as what people in this thread are implying.

What does informant mean on birth certificate?
www.answers.com...

I just did research to try to figure out if there are any factors that may disqualify someone from being an informant for the birth of a child in America. I couldn't find any but I found the following:

Who is able to register the birth?

The birth must be registered by a qualified informant and this person must be one of the following:

if the baby’s parents were married to each other at the time of the birth then both the mother and father are qualified informants. One of them may attend on their own or they both may attend together.
if the baby’s parents were not married to each other at the time of the birth then only the mother is the qualified informant. The father will not be able to register the birth on his own. If the father wishes his details to be included in the register then he will have to attend with the mother at the time of registration. If the father is not able to attend at the time of registration then the mother will not be able to include the fathers details at that time. However, it may be possible to enter his details at a later date. If the mother is not married to the baby’s father she is not normally obliged to include the father’s details in the register.
in certain circumstances another person may qualify as an informant but this is a very rare occurrence. If you think that this may be the case then you should contact the Register Office for further advice.
- See more at: www.rbkc.gov.uk...

So, there is a concept in British law defining what a "qualified informant" is in terms of registering a birth. In my research for this post I didn't find any references to such a concept in American law or on American government websites.

It may just be that this case goes to the US Supreme Court to decide this matter for the first time.

If it only takes government identification to become a "qualified informant" in America then that may actually be a reason why California is allowing the following:

Majority of New Driver’s Licenses Issued in California This Year are to Undocumented Immigrants
www.abovetopsecret.com...

They may be being proactive about this "qualified informant" issue (assuming that California WANTS more anchor babies). After all, who knows what will happen after this goes through the courts. The first thing that I thought of when I saw this thread is, legally speaking:

How can you have an informant for something as important as a birth without being able to confirm their existence in the system?

It may be this was a detail that the governments involved let slide for all these years...after all, we're talking about the birth of a new baby here. In my opinion, it's inhumane to be legalistic at that moment, plus, consider the information in the following thread.

USA Illegal Alien Conspiracy Theory
www.abovetopsecret.com...

But, regardless of any potential benefits of registering these births, some states are so strapped for cash now that they may decide to start getting legalistic about this and thus it looks like the American court system for the first time will have to determine:

What is a "qualified informant" here anyway?

I found this article and thought some might be interested in it's contents.

I believe this kind of sheds some light on the reasoning for trying to uphold this refusal of paperwork.

en.wikipedia.org...

A big ol can of worms.

I am learning alot of things that I didn't know, digging into this subject.

Thanks again for posting

I don't get it. So if I and my pregnant wife cross your border illegally...and I rush her to the nearest hospital because she is close to giving birth...your state must make my child an American citizen ?

It sounds pretty ridiculous and rather open to abuse.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
I don't get it. So if I and my pregnant wife cross your border illegally...and I rush her to the nearest hospital because she is close to giving birth...your state must make my child an American citizen ?

It sounds pretty ridiculous and rather open to abuse.

It IS pretty ridiculous.

I'm curious, does anyone know of any other countries where you are automatically a citizen if born in that country? Even if your parents immigrate illegally for the sole purpose of giving birth in that foreign country?

a reply to: TinkerHaus

There are 31 countries that have full automatic birthright citizenship.
2 where you must petition.
22 which have some type of requirement.

Here's an interesting opinion on birthright....

Birthright Not The Law, Never Has Been

It should not take a Constitutional Attorney to explain to us that babies born in the U.S. to foreign parents, under the Fourteenth Amendment, do not have ‘birthright,’ the right to U.S. natural-born citizenship. But so many judges and courts have been in this fight that the lines are terribly and dangerously blurred. Ken Klukowski, a practicing constitutional attorney, and the legal editor at Breitbart offers his answer.

The Fourteenth Amendment does not confer citizenship on the children of foreigners, whether legal or illegal. Such conference IS NOT THE LAW, AND NEVER HAS BEEN THE LAW.

Hmmm.

Are people actually supporting the idea that children born in your country do not deserve citizenship?

WOW.

I thought I had read everything on this site.

That's the most un-patriotic thing I have ever seen. Unbelievable.

Your ancestors were all undocumented immigrants and their backs built this country you are so proud of. It's amazing what a little polarity and hate can accomplish.

~Tenth

a reply to: buster2010

The anchor baby concept is just insane and needs to stop. Kids already here should be able to stay, but we can't keep rewarding people for breaking the law.

originally posted by: tothetenthpower
Are people actually supporting the idea that children born in your country do not deserve citizenship?

WOW.

I thought I had read everything on this site.

That's the most un-patriotic thing I have ever seen. Unbelievable.

Your ancestors were all undocumented immigrants and their backs built this country you are so proud of. It's amazing what a little polarity and hate can accomplish.

~Tenth

Try not to use such a broad brush..

I don't hate anyone - but I do believe a lot of these loopholes need to be closed. I have nothing at all against legal immigration. I would even be open to making the process less difficult and less expensive, as the vast majority of immigrants don't have the money and resources needed to legally enter this country and apply for residence.