Don2 (Don1 Revised)
Contributor
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1120706
So if the woman's pregnancy is still in early stages, how do officials check if she's ptegnant?
-
Features
U.S. to impose visa restrictions for pregnant women
- Thread starter Don2 (Don1 Revised)
- Start date
So if the woman's pregnancy is still in early stages, how do officials check if she's ptegnant?
Keith&Co.
Contributor
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 22,444
- Location
- Far Western Mass
- Gender
- Here.
- Basic Beliefs
- I'm here...
I know nothing about birth tourism, but is it typical that they plan to live in the US for nine months? If so, that's some serious pre-planning. We were still arguing a name for the first one during the drive to the hospital. Oldest was really lucky not to be "Virginia Beach Boulevard" or "Midtown Tunnel."
Derec
Contributor
This is a bandaid. The real solution would be to end the antiquated practice of the automatic birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship should be reserved for children of citizens and lawful permanent residents (i.e. no tourists or illegals) only.
Well you don't really need to spend the whole pregnancy in the US. It's enough to travel here when you are in the 9th month of gestation.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
There are operators under the guise of tour operators that schedule pregnant foreigners to be in the USA when due to deliver, getting citizenship for the baby. Chain migration follows.
Worldtraveller
Veteran Member
That's the claim. I've yet to see evidence of this.
laughing dog
Contributor
Is this for all women, or only for women from "shithole" countries?
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,988
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
barbos
Contributor
It has to involve Trump, always? I wrote about it long time ago - some member of Russian Duma went to California to give birth, all the while calling US Big Satan or something to that effect.
If you have money and want to get a western passport then this scheme is a nobrainer, everyone does that.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2002
- Messages
- 46,988
- Location
- Frozen in Michigan
- Gender
- Old Fart
- Basic Beliefs
- Don't be a dick.
Defending Trump for the boss?
So if "everyone does that", why doesn't Trump ever mention it?
barbos
Contributor
Nope, it's you who is defending Trump when you put forward obviously false accusations.
Are you implying that the only reason Trump does not mention it is becasue rich russians benefit from that? You are desperate,
Rich russians don't need Trump because it's perfectly legal to book any hotel in US even if you are pregnant member of Russian Parliament
Trump is OK with rich people, regardless of their country of origin. In fact it's official emigration policy of US and really any other developed country.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Mainstream news reporting. Mainly Chinese and other Asians. It was reported that several operations were busted in Ca.Hong Kong Chinese have been migrating to Vancouver BC and our west coast for sometime, especially after the mainland takeover. Cantonese Chinese is the predominate dialect in Seattle. The constitution as written says anyone born here is a citizen without qualification. I believe an exception is made for children of foreign diplomats. There was some case recently where the kid of a foreign diplomat who was abroad tried to claim US citizenship because she was born here to get out of some trouble.
The term 'amchur bay' was coined for illegal's immigrants crossing the sauterne border and giving birth in the USA. If you want an example of chain migration take a look at Trump's wife and inlaws….oh the irony for the anti immigrant president.
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
I do not think people realize how American citizenship and legal staus is prized by many who wnat to come here. It is a Holy Grail. Cases of dead people in a shipping container on a ship from Asia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby
History and usage[edit]
A related term, anchor child, referring in this case to "very young immigrants who will later sponsor immigration for family members who are still abroad", was used in reference to Vietnamese boat people from about 1987.[7][10][11][12][13] In 2002 in the Irish High Court, Bill Shipsey used the term to refer to an Irish-born child whose family were his clients; in the 2003 Supreme Court judgment upholding the parents' deportation, Adrian Hardiman commented on the novelty of both the term and concomitant argument.[14] (In Ireland jus soli citizenship was abolished in 2004.)
"Anchor baby" appeared in print in 1996, but remained relatively obscure until 2006, when it found new prominence amid the increased focus on the immigration debate in the United States.[4][7][13][15] The term is generally considered pejorative.[16] In 2011 the American Heritage Dictionary added an entry for the term in the dictionary's new edition, which did not indicate that the term was disparaging. Following a critical blog piece by Mary Giovagnoli, the director of the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigration research group in Washington, the dictionary updated its online definition to indicate that the term is "offensive", similar to its entries on ethnic slurs.[15][17] As of 2012, the definition reads:
n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.
The decision to revise the definition led to some criticism from immigration opponents, such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.[18]
In 2012, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, in a meeting designed to promote the 2010 Utah Compact declaration as a model for a federal government approach to immigration, said that "The use of the word 'anchor baby' when we're talking about a child of God is offensive."[19]
Maternity tourism industry[edit]
Main article: Birth tourism
As of 2015, Los Angeles is considered the center of the maternity tourism industry, which caters mostly to wealthy Asian women;[20] authorities in the city there closed 14 maternity tourism "hotels" in 2013.[21] The industry is difficult to close down since it is not illegal for a pregnant woman to travel to the U.S.[21]
On March 3, 2015 Federal Agents in Los Angeles conducted a series of raids on 3 "multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses" expected to produce the "biggest federal criminal case ever against the booming 'anchor baby' industry", according to the Wall Street Journal.[21][22]
Ireland's abolition of unconditional birthright citizenship[edit]
In 2005, Ireland amended its constitution to become the last country in Europe to abolish unconditional jus soli citizenship, as a direct result of concerns over birth tourism. A headline case was Chen v Home Secretary, whereby a Chinese temporary migrant living in mainland United Kingdom travelled to Belfast, Northern Ireland to give birth to her daughter for the purpose of obtaining Irish citizenship for her daughter (Ireland's jus soli law extends to all parts of the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK). The daughter's Irish citizenship was then used by her parents to obtain permanent residence in the UK as the parents of a dependent EU citizen.[23]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby
History and usage[edit]
A related term, anchor child, referring in this case to "very young immigrants who will later sponsor immigration for family members who are still abroad", was used in reference to Vietnamese boat people from about 1987.[7][10][11][12][13] In 2002 in the Irish High Court, Bill Shipsey used the term to refer to an Irish-born child whose family were his clients; in the 2003 Supreme Court judgment upholding the parents' deportation, Adrian Hardiman commented on the novelty of both the term and concomitant argument.[14] (In Ireland jus soli citizenship was abolished in 2004.)
"Anchor baby" appeared in print in 1996, but remained relatively obscure until 2006, when it found new prominence amid the increased focus on the immigration debate in the United States.[4][7][13][15] The term is generally considered pejorative.[16] In 2011 the American Heritage Dictionary added an entry for the term in the dictionary's new edition, which did not indicate that the term was disparaging. Following a critical blog piece by Mary Giovagnoli, the director of the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigration research group in Washington, the dictionary updated its online definition to indicate that the term is "offensive", similar to its entries on ethnic slurs.[15][17] As of 2012, the definition reads:
n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.
The decision to revise the definition led to some criticism from immigration opponents, such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.[18]
In 2012, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, in a meeting designed to promote the 2010 Utah Compact declaration as a model for a federal government approach to immigration, said that "The use of the word 'anchor baby' when we're talking about a child of God is offensive."[19]
Maternity tourism industry[edit]
Main article: Birth tourism
As of 2015, Los Angeles is considered the center of the maternity tourism industry, which caters mostly to wealthy Asian women;[20] authorities in the city there closed 14 maternity tourism "hotels" in 2013.[21] The industry is difficult to close down since it is not illegal for a pregnant woman to travel to the U.S.[21]
On March 3, 2015 Federal Agents in Los Angeles conducted a series of raids on 3 "multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses" expected to produce the "biggest federal criminal case ever against the booming 'anchor baby' industry", according to the Wall Street Journal.[21][22]
Ireland's abolition of unconditional birthright citizenship[edit]
In 2005, Ireland amended its constitution to become the last country in Europe to abolish unconditional jus soli citizenship, as a direct result of concerns over birth tourism. A headline case was Chen v Home Secretary, whereby a Chinese temporary migrant living in mainland United Kingdom travelled to Belfast, Northern Ireland to give birth to her daughter for the purpose of obtaining Irish citizenship for her daughter (Ireland's jus soli law extends to all parts of the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK). The daughter's Irish citizenship was then used by her parents to obtain permanent residence in the UK as the parents of a dependent EU citizen.[23]
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism
Birth tourism
Countries by birthright citizenship
Unconditional birthright citizenship for persons born in the country
Birthright citizenship with restrictions
Birthright citizenship abolished
Birth tourism is the practice of traveling to another country for the purpose of giving birth in that country. The main reason for birth tourism is to obtain citizenship for the child in a country with birthright citizenship (jus soli). Such a child is sometimes called an "anchor baby" if their citizenship is intended to help their parents obtain permanent residency in the country. Other reasons for birth tourism include access to public schooling, healthcare, sponsorship for the parents in the future,[1] or even circumvention of China's two-child policy. Popular destinations include the United States and Canada. Another target for birth tourism is Hong Kong, where some mainland Chinese citizens travel to give birth to gain right of abode for their children.
In an effort to discourage birth tourism, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom have modified their citizenship laws at different times, mostly by granting citizenship by birth only if at least one parent is a citizen of the country or a legal permanent resident who has lived in the country for several years. Germany has never granted unconditional birthright citizenship, but has traditionally used jus sanguinis, so, by giving up the requirement of at least one citizen parent, Germany has softened rather than tightened its citizenship laws; however, unlike their children born in Germany, non-EU- and non-Swiss-citizen parents born abroad usually cannot have dual citizenship.
No European country presently grants unconditional birthright citizenship; however, most countries in the Americas, e.g., the United States, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil do so. In Africa, Lesotho and Tanzania grant unconditional birthright citizenship,[citation needed] as do some in the Asian-Pacific region including Fiji, Pakistan, and Tuvalu.[citation needed]
Birth tourism
Countries by birthright citizenship
Unconditional birthright citizenship for persons born in the country
Birthright citizenship with restrictions
Birthright citizenship abolished
Birth tourism is the practice of traveling to another country for the purpose of giving birth in that country. The main reason for birth tourism is to obtain citizenship for the child in a country with birthright citizenship (jus soli). Such a child is sometimes called an "anchor baby" if their citizenship is intended to help their parents obtain permanent residency in the country. Other reasons for birth tourism include access to public schooling, healthcare, sponsorship for the parents in the future,[1] or even circumvention of China's two-child policy. Popular destinations include the United States and Canada. Another target for birth tourism is Hong Kong, where some mainland Chinese citizens travel to give birth to gain right of abode for their children.
In an effort to discourage birth tourism, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom have modified their citizenship laws at different times, mostly by granting citizenship by birth only if at least one parent is a citizen of the country or a legal permanent resident who has lived in the country for several years. Germany has never granted unconditional birthright citizenship, but has traditionally used jus sanguinis, so, by giving up the requirement of at least one citizen parent, Germany has softened rather than tightened its citizenship laws; however, unlike their children born in Germany, non-EU- and non-Swiss-citizen parents born abroad usually cannot have dual citizenship.
No European country presently grants unconditional birthright citizenship; however, most countries in the Americas, e.g., the United States, Canada, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil do so. In Africa, Lesotho and Tanzania grant unconditional birthright citizenship,[citation needed] as do some in the Asian-Pacific region including Fiji, Pakistan, and Tuvalu.[citation needed]
Yeah, it doesn't make much sense to me, either. IIRC you have to be an adult to apply for a family visa. By the time you have the money for birth tourism, then wait for the child to grow up you're old enough you're not likely to want to come here for the opportunity.
Rather, what we are seeing is those who are already wealthy engaging in it as a safety net. If things go bad in their country the child has a second passport. It's not going to bring in leeches but it might very well bring in the corrupt.
barbos
Contributor
Well, it's a long term investment, if you are woman at 25 with money, by the age of 45 you will have US passport and will be able to retire in Florida. Alternative is $800K for investor green card, pretty expensive.
The Irony here is that you can be unable to speak any english and having spent essentially no time in US and yet be a US citizen. At the same time you deport people who have lived all their life in US and who don't speak their "native" language at all.
If you have the money to retire in Florida you're going to be a net plus to the US, what's the problem? Remember, said immigrants won't get any Social Security and they can only get Medicare by paying for it (most of us don't pay for part A, but if you don't have work history here you do.)
Wouldn't the simpler answer just be to not give automatic citizenship just for being born on US soil? You could base it on the citizenship of the parents.
That said, perhaps this wouldn't be a problem if you had a higher number of applicants allowed in each year and a quick legal application process. I think that would tamper down on illegal immigrants too.
That said, perhaps this wouldn't be a problem if you had a higher number of applicants allowed in each year and a quick legal application process. I think that would tamper down on illegal immigrants too.
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
I consider it fair return on all those women left behind as result of getting pregnant from US men in wars in Europe, SE Asia and ME, and Oh, vacations in Central and South America.
The world is F'd up and the US isn't going to fix it by trying to keep brown out at this late date.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,526
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
Well, you could: just pass another Act of Parliament. In the U.S. it would take a constitutional amendment, and those take supermajorities here, so that's never going to happen as long as one party perceives chain migration as a strategy for using demographics to beat the other party. A more practical answer here would be to make birth tourism a federal crime, and keep records, so that twenty-one years down the road the conspirators get a big fat "No" when their American citizen kid applies for chain migration on their behalf. "People respond to incentives. That is the whole of economics -- the rest is commentary."
Higher quotas and easier legal immigration would probably a good thing on other grounds; but I don't see how it would help with this -- there would still be people who don't meet the requirements, and those people would still have an incentive to game the system.
Elixir
Made in America
At least ten generations of American residency should be required.
At least that would put an end to discrimination against native American people.