State-by-state comparison of child support guidelines

"Blatt" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
link.net...


While you considered my comments about illegal aliens to be a red
herring,
that is the only instance I am aware of where migration is used to
secure a
favorable child support award. Late term pregnancy mothers who enter
the US
and give birth on US soil are a unique group. By law, their child born
on
US soil is considered a US citizen. We allow illegal alien mothers to
remain in the US to care for their US citizen children. These mothers
are
classified as Permanently Residing Under Color of Law (PRUCOL) allowing
them
to receive welfare benefits which are then reimbursed through child
support
orders.

Thank you for the explanation, which will probably be sufficient to
provide a road map through the professional literature.

As for PRUCOL, I note that having a US citizen child is not included
in the SSA definition/explanation:
http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0500501420
I had always understood that the USA does deport parents of American
citizen children, essentially giving the parents the option of taking
the child with them, fostering them with friends or relatives, or
leaving them in care of the state, presumably leading to their
adoption.

I mis-spoke when I referred to mothers on PRUCOL status as being under the
"law." Technically, they are allowed to stay in the US because of court
decisions. Check out:

http://www.fairus.org/html/04107604.htm

Please remember welfare and child support are tied together in the US. When
a mother applies for welfare benefits for her child she is required to name
the father so the state can establish paternity and get a CS order to have
the father repay the state for the welfare benefits paid out.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net...


I mis-spoke when I referred to mothers on PRUCOL status as being under the
"law." Technically, they are allowed to stay in the US because of court
decisions. Check out:

http://www.fairus.org/html/04107604.htm

Please remember welfare and child support are tied together in the US. When
a mother applies for welfare benefits for her child she is required to name
the father so the state can establish paternity and get a CS order to have
the father repay the state for the welfare benefits paid out.

Relying on FAIR for a statement of USG policy and practices with
respect to aliens is like relying on the Daily Mail for a picture of
UK policy on asylum seekers.

True refugees (so-called "Convention refugees") are entitled to
national treatment (i.e., to be treated substantially like the host
country citizens). Most asylum seekers are not (for that very reason)
granted Convention status even if they are allowed to remain.

I think it would be a very exceptional case where a parent was allowed
to stay in the US or in the UK solely by reason of a child's
nationality or place of birth. (A child would only have access to UK
nationality if s/he actually lived here the first ten years of life
(or, not relevant here, if the mother or the father if married to the
mother obtained UK nationality or permanent residence status during
the child's minority); while the UK Government in 1980 (when the new
nationality act was being debated) said that it would never deport a
noncitizen British-born child (although it would not hesitate to
deport that child's parents) it now does, or reserves the right to do,
exactly that.

In fact sometimes children are left with friends or relatives. Once
the child is 10, or anytime later in life, it can register as a
British citizen.

Many US (and Canadian, etc.) benefits are not citizenship- or
needs-tested. Thus child allowances ($100 or so a month) go to the
person who cares for any minor child.

The UK Child Support Agency's practices are consistent with what you
say about welfare and support. But it seems wildly improbable that
most child support cases involve poor persons. Divorce and nonmarital
children (the latter constitute more than half of all births in the
USA, UK and France although not, or not yet, in such (conservative?)
countries as Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland).

"Blatt" wrote in message
om...
"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message
link.net...


I mis-spoke when I referred to mothers on PRUCOL status as being under
the
"law." Technically, they are allowed to stay in the US because of court
decisions. Check out:

http://www.fairus.org/html/04107604.htm

Please remember welfare and child support are tied together in the US.
When
a mother applies for welfare benefits for her child she is required to
name
the father so the state can establish paternity and get a CS order to
have
the father repay the state for the welfare benefits paid out.

Relying on FAIR for a statement of USG policy and practices with
respect to aliens is like relying on the Daily Mail for a picture of
UK policy on asylum seekers.

How about an official government source you claimed did not show what I am
saying. See:

http://policy.ssa.gov/poms.nsf/lnx/0500501420

I'm beginning to think you are the "student" rather than the "teacher."
Teachers are normally more open to offers of research sources and direction
for finding facts. Your arguments are against the facts and the sources.

"Bob Whiteside" wrote in message link.net...
"Blatt" wrote in message

I'm beginning to think you are the "student" rather than the "teacher."
Teachers are normally more open to offers of research sources and direction
for finding facts. Your arguments are against the facts and the sources.

No, I'm a human rights researcher and student advisor. I know nothing
about child support and do appreciate what you had to say.

I see the Daily Mail rant against bogus asylum seekers -- and
doubtless with justice -- but they wind up arguing against withdrawing
from Europe entirely and renouncing commitments made in favour of
escapees from terror in 1947-1951, after the reality of the Holocaust
and the Iron Curtain became obvious. (What then happened is that
clever lawyers recharacterised economic migrants as asylum seekers,
and the courts proved incapable of telling them apart.)

FAIR is a lobbying organisation, with an agenda. That's all I meant.
One would not go either to FAIR or to the Daily Mail to get "facts":
one would go to the Census Bureau, UNHCR, the IOM or another
disinterested collector of data.

BTW I have no "argument", it being none of my business what the USA
chooses to do in its political wisdom about anything that doesn't
concern me. We are amused, however, about your apparent death wish:
endless deficits blamed on shadow evildoers, smoke and mirrors to
advance the interests of hysterical partisans of a tax-free,
laissez-faire oligarchy.

Did I say I had no agenda? The only trouble is, when the USA gets a
cold the UK starts to sneeze.

But I thought this forum was to advance the interests of children.
Given a particular "client" one proffers the best advice possible:
even if that defies national interest (e.g., cross the border (from
Mexico to Texas, from Scotland to Northern Ireland) to have your baby:
give that baby a valuable "asset", a bankable nationality...