"For the $1,475 basic fee, Zhou and Chao will arrange for a three-month stay in a center -- two months before the birth and a month after. A room with cable TV and a wireless Internet connection, plus three meals, starts at $35 a day. The doctors and staff all speak Chinese. There are shopping and sightseeing trips."
What a fabulous product! Talk about travel souvenirs.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
५६ टिप्पण्या:
And does anyone really think allowing anchor babies does not need to be stopped? Preferably retroactively too. Citizenship for Green Card Holders and Citizens babies only. No more drive by baby drops!
Wow. If I were Chinese, I would scrounge up every penny I could get my hands on to do that.
Certainly it illustrates why the law needs alteration, but for now, it would definitely be worth huge sacrifices to take advantage of it.
Immigration is about quality as much as it is about quantity. When these children are older they'll probably be the sort of immigrant we want to attract.
Peter
It'll be interesting to see the magnitude of the political outcry in response to such an overt commercialization of anchor babies.
The example certainly belies the argument that the practice is not abused when the price is zero or, in fact, subsidized by US taxpayers.
Of course, the liberal response is likely to be to outlaw the crass "commercial practice," so as not to offend favored constituencies who otherwise exploit the loophole.
Tea Party types will try to amend the Constitution.
The future direction of the economy is likely to determine the outcome.
*sigh*
And there's no way to stop it, short of repealing the 14th Amendment.
Well, more stories like this and I'll get on board for it...
$1,475 is pretty cheap.
The Mexicans can do it a lot cheaper, though the danger is greater.
Since the US is hemorrhaging money, maybe we should just dispense with the 'having a baby' part and just sell US citizenship online.
Hell, you wouldn't even have to move here to get welfare and Social Security. Sweet!
I am serenely confident that "comprehensive" immigration reform would do nothing about this outrage.
Noting in the fourteenth amendment precludes Congress fixing this. Proposed Law: Hey, we meant this for slaves, for Pete's sake!
Pogo is making a joke but selling US citizenship to highest bidders could help with our federal deficit problem. I am half-serious but here is the pledge they would take:
"In exchange for $100,000, I [insert downtrodden immigrant name here] pledge to be a law abiding legal resident. I will never be a full, voting citizen but my kids and their kids will be full-fledged American citizens. In addition, I agree that I can not take any govt benefits of amy kind for the next 15 years."
This would be win-win IMO.
Hey! We found something we can export to China!
I was once in central Mexico, traveling and working. It was fun, a vacation. The people I stayed with were nice, a few were just sitting around, not doing much. One of these guys who did not or could not see there was much to do had a grown daughter who like her friends had done, aspired to make it to Nogales so she could cross into Nogales Az and have a baby. That was the first time I had heard it put so nakedly. I sat there a bit stunned, not knowing what to say. I didn't say anything.
For me, that moment was perhaps the turning point.
I can't stand it when the leaders of Mexico accuse the US of racism for not continuing to allow this behavior. And yes, many of our other policies toward them impact them extremely negatively. I get it.
Ah, but will the Chinese vote Dem or GOP?
That's the big question.
Quayle, are they like the Cubans and vote Republican? I should add, like the way Cubans USED to vote. It's changing now.
"Give me your retired, your first-born,
Your muddled asses yearning to breathe in San Fransisco for a fee,
The rich and pregnant of your teeming shore.
Send these, the wealthy, Qantas-tost to me,
I sell my lamp beside the gold-plated door!"
Ben (The Tiger in Exile) said...
"*sigh*
And there's no way to stop it, short of repealing the 14th Amendment.
Well, more stories like this and I'll get on board for it..."
Wrong. It will just take enforcement of the real intent of the 14 Amendment. Those "Born" or "Naturalized" must also be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Children born of aliens (not legal resident, green card holders) are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents home country, not the US. Liberals, and world government proponents have exploited the blurring of "jurisdiction" by Wong Kim Ark for 112 years.
There is no such thing as "birthright citizenship" foor the children of aliens, and WKA also said no such thing.
Er, excuse me superior shits who rule us, do you really want to drown us in asiatic hordes? Oh, that's unsayable? So solly, but that is what you want, yes? I see. Well, it's your future too.
I thought Red China was the People's Paradise.
Don't tell HD or Montagne. Their hearts will break.
mesquito said...
Noting in the fourteenth amendment precludes Congress fixing this. Proposed Law: Hey, we meant this for slaves, for Pete's sake!
Keep in mind, those are "The Constitution is a living document"
crowd saying that. Anybody with a brain can read the Amendment and know what it means.
This is why judicial review has to go.
HT said...
Quayle, are they like the Cubans and vote Republican? I should add, like the way Cubans USED to vote. It's changing now.
Those are the ones who've only heard about Castro, not lived under him.
Since the US is hemorrhaging money, maybe we should just dispense with the 'having a baby' part and just sell US citizenship online.
Any way to amend the Constitution to trade the citizenship of congress critters serving more than 2 terms on a 1 to 1 basis for a birth-tourism baby?
And of course more babies will increase the tax base to help pay our debts when the Chinese stop buying.
Heh, heh.
US Debt Downgraded
China just kicked the U.S. in the proverbial nuts. I hate to say it but we had it coming.
Last month China played the U.S. into leaving it off its list of “currency manipulators.” To show just how grateful they were, yesterday China unveiled its first report on the debt risks of 50 countries. And guess who was ranked below China?
The U.S. of A.! In fact our government debt was knocked down from the best in the world to a pitiful 13th place.
Id like to see the laws fixed so that angry guys who come here, drop a load and then go back home don't anchor their babies here either.
I remember hearing as a kid that a baby born on a ship can also claim citizenship of the captain's country.
My sister is a neonatal NP in Washington, DC. She sees this all the time, only she sees the sick babies without insurance who get US citizenship and disability. She says that the Nigerians are big abusers.
Hell, I wish I could trade my citizenship with a citizen of a country that doesn't have Obamacare and doesn't pretend to tax all income of its citizens wherever earned. Britain would be OK.
What do I give up? The right to vote!!
AJ Lynch said:
"In exchange for $100,000, I [insert downtrodden immigrant name here] pledge to be a law abiding legal resident. I will never be a full, voting citizen but my kids and their kids will be full-fledged American citizens. In addition, I agree that I can not take any govt benefits of amy kind for the next 15 years."
Unless it has changed in the past 5-10 years we already do just that and have for quite some time.
Anyone willing to invest a certain amount of money in the US, I seem to recall $250,000 but may be wrong,in a US business gets a green card. This card is issued outside of the normal quota system.
I suspect that the conditions imposed on the immigrant are similar to AJ's with the exception that they do become eligible to become citizens like anyone else.
John Henry
Looking for conversation that is never off topic?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NIOT/?yguid=80172536
What I don't get is the notion of *anchor* baby.
There is no reason whatsoever to let the parents stay in the country.
The notion of allowing a child born in the US to have a choice at age 18 to chose one or the other is fine with me. There is something about us allowing that that I particularly like. It seems right. But Mom and Dad *still* don't get some sort of pass, nor other siblings.
My feeling on the "anchor" thing, the "Oh, no! You can't deport us because it means deporting our US citizen child!" is... Boo-freaking-hoo.
But doing it for the kid feels different to me, than using the kid like a commodity.
Not true at all Synova.
Under the stupid policy of "family reunification," brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, siblings and children of permanent residents or citizens gain priority for green cards over the educated, rich, smart, and the potty-trained and ready-to-work.
Other countries, like Canada and New Zealand, prefer folks who will add to their economies and not be a drag. This will be noticed when young Americans leave our welfare country for a country that values innovation and enterprise over "reuniting families."
And does anyone really think allowing anchor babies does not need to be stopped? Preferably retroactively too.
You would have to amend the Constitution first.
Revenant said,
"You would have to amend the Constitution first."
No, you would simply follow the 14 Amendment. Anchor babies are born subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's country, and as such are not entitled to "birthright citizenship".
John:
I was suggesting we charge EVERY legal immigrant $100K. You may be correct that SOME legal immigrants today have 250K but they don't pay it to the govt.[they are just showing proff that they are not indigent IMHO].
My plan would get us $200 Billion per year if we allowed 2 million well-heeled immigrants. That could fix a big part of our govt spending addiction.
Is this a safe haven to make fun of Joan Rivers' surgery-destroyed face?
and I would support an alteration of the 14th Amendment -- a clarification.
Just amend the law to cease allowing for "family reunification" immigration. The "anchor baby" phenomenon relies on that just as much as on the 14th Amendment, and it's much easier to change.
so who is paying who so that closing that loophole does not happen ? if this 'service' is often used by the wealthy and well connected, I have no doubt that money is changing hands at some level. And with Clinton at the helm, who knows what is going on ...
No, you would simply follow the 14 Amendment. Anchor babies are born subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's country, and as such are not entitled to "birthright citizenship".
It is not clear that that is either the original intent or original meaning of that clause. In any event, the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise for the last 112 years.
Rev's right. The original intent of the 14th A.was clearly for freed slaves, but the language is a whole lot broader than that. It would be nice to see the regs changed to stop birthright citizenship thereby setting up a test case perhaps.
Sheesh....this is news? Perhaps the NYT staff/reporters should get out of Manhattan a bit more.
Pregnancy tourism has been going on since 1906 when a landmark civil rights case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark challenged the Chinese Exclusion Act.
Disgracefully, the Chinese Exclusion Act wasn't repealed until 1943 and the California Alien Land Law of 1913 prohibited aliens ineligible for citizenship, aka all Asians,from owning land until 1953. However, old bigotries die hard and the state of California continues discriminating against Asians with UC admission quotas.
Next time you're in SF take a ferry ride out to Angel Island and look at the walls filled with the poetry of despair.
I digress, prior to reversion in 1997, the Brits denied most repatriation requests from multi-racial HK citizens, many whom had carried Commonwealth passports their entire lives. Suddenly people who thought of themselves as Brits were without a country.
Pregnancy tourism increased dramatically to CA and the west coast of Canada in particular as Canada welcomed wealthy HK immigrants and pregnancy tourism.
Proof that the US remains the best country.
I don't see people lining up to be born in Russia, or China, or N. Korea.
Troy said...
"Rev's right. The original intent of the 14th A.was clearly for freed slaves, but the language is a whole lot broader than that. It would be nice to see the regs changed to stop birthright citizenship thereby setting up a test case perhaps."
No he isn't. The legislative intent of the 14 A was to embed the Civil Rights Act 1866 into the Constitution. Jurisdiction was explicitly said to be subject to the US and no other foreign power, here, from the first sentence of the Act:
"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United States,"
This definition of "jurisdiction" was repeated by SCOTUS in Elk v. Wilkins (1884) here:
"But an emigrant from any foreign state cannot become a citizen of the United States without a formal renunciation of his old allegiance, and an acceptance by the United States of that renunciation through such form of naturalization as may be required law."
and:
"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared
Page 112 U. S. 102
to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."
Children born in the uS are subject to the jurisdiction of their parents. If their parents are citizens of another nation then the child is also subject to the jurisdiction of that nation.
Wong Kim Ark said that the children of resident domiciled Chinese aliens (parents unnaturalizeable because of the Chinese Exclusionary Acts) could claim citizenship by election at the age of majority. It was very specific. It did not say that children of non resident aliens had the right of election (birthright citizenship).
Here is the decision:
"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."
It spells out the limited scope of the decision. Any case that gives BR Citizenship to children of aliens who never become US Citizens or domiclied resident aliens is clearly in error, which cases since 1898 are you referring? Yes, I would love to see this go to the SCOTUS and be clarified once and for all.
Looks like these folks aren't getting the memo about our entitlement and pension systems going belly up.
Bring 'em on. The faster the system collapses, the sooner we can fix it.
This is a well known scam. Funny how the WaPo is just realizing it.
Koreans have had "birth vacations" with the women staying in LA homes for years.
"stop birthright citizenship" was a it strong on my part... perhaps stop "anchor baby phenomenon" is better.
Of course the 14th A. was intended to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1866, but that was clearly to ameliorate the problems facing freed slaves.
If SCOTUS broadened it or interpreted it more broadly later that has nothing to do necessarily with what Congress intended.
It was 1866 and 1868 -- the intent of the vetoes acts was to help freedmen vindicate their rights.
Obviously it's been broadened by the broad language of the 14th A. and the inability of the Supreme Court to stick to what's written and intended in their infinite wisdom.
Er, excuse me superior shits who rule us, do you really want to drown us in asiatic hordes? Oh, that's unsayable? So solly, but that is what you want, yes? I see. Well, it's your future too.
Your hyper defensiveness is hilarious. Shows deep down you have something resembling common sense.
You remind me of the person who was appalled that an American couple was in the process of adopting a Chinese baby. The person blurted out, "But how will you understand it?"
As for "Asiatic hordes," well, given the choice between a horde of them them and a horde of your kind ...
Word verification: shinces
Ben (The Tiger in Exile) said...
*sigh*
And there's no way to stop it, short of repealing the 14th Amendment.
==================
There is nothing more the Open Borders Cabal wants than to convince the 85% of America that want mass illegal immigration and anchor babies stopped, have for 30 years, that they are helpless to end it. Because cabalists argue, the 14th Amendment is a guarantee, and everyone knows the Constitution cannot be amended over the last 50 years if any organized opposition exists. (1962 Poll Tax, then utter futility at the idea of any Amendement passing once special interests then organized nationwide, networked, and proved they could block any subsequent one they opposed.)
Helpless. "Just be passive 85% of America as your nation and culture is partially destroyed and your environment and wages degrade - BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!!! Oh, TRY to Amend the Holy Parchment...Hahahaha!!"
The people of the Cabal - the Bushie Republican Corporatists, Catholic Church, Atzlan activists, Democrats, Agribiz, China and Latin Lobbies, progressive Jews who champion de-christianizing and de-westernizing the USA through demographics ---are well-orgainized.
The most pathetic are the black leaders that follow their Dem overseers instructions even though no group has suffered more from loss of jobs, wages, neighborhoods from illegal immigration/3rd World reunification of relatives here - than blacks.
Fortunately, the Revenents, Tigers who listen to the Cabalists are wrong. There is no law saying illegal spawn are "insta-citizens" - though many academics, media, and liberal judges that serve the Cabal say so.
What has to happen is an emergency law - as the US is right on the edge of emergency as is, with illegal-laden states at or close to bankruptcy. No more anchor babies or birthright citizenship to invaders or "anchor baby tourists", Saudi students, etc. Then let that law stand until SCOTUS gets it. By then, they likely will face a situation of one dubious interpretation of the 14th threatening to undermine greater parts of the Constitution itself.
Ben (The Tiger in Exile) said...
*sigh*
And there's no way to stop it, short of repealing the 14th Amendment.
==================
There is nothing more the Open Borders Cabal wants than to convince the 85% of America that want mass illegal immigration and anchor babies stopped, have for 30 years, that they are helpless to end it. Because cabalists argue, the 14th Amendment is a guarantee, and everyone knows the Constitution cannot be amended over the last 50 years if any organized opposition exists. (1962 Poll Tax, then utter futility at the idea of any Amendement passing once special interests then organized nationwide, networked, and proved they could block any subsequent one they opposed.)
Helpless. "Just be passive 85% of America as your nation and culture is partially destroyed and your environment and wages degrade - BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT!!! Oh, TRY to Amend the Holy Parchment...Hahahaha!!"
The people of the Cabal - the Bushie Republican Corporatists, Catholic Church, Atzlan activists, Democrats, Agribiz, China and Latin Lobbies, progressive Jews who champion de-christianizing and de-westernizing the USA through demographics ---are well-orgainized.
The most pathetic are the black leaders that follow their Dem overseers instructions even though no group has suffered more from loss of jobs, wages, neighborhoods from illegal immigration/3rd World reunification of relatives here - than blacks.
Fortunately, the Revenents, Tigers who listen to the Cabalists are wrong. There is no law saying illegal spawn are "insta-citizens" - though many academics, media, and liberal judges that serve the Cabal say so.
What has to happen is an emergency law - as the US is right on the edge of emergency as is, with illegal-laden states at or close to bankruptcy. No more anchor babies or birthright citizenship to invaders or "anchor baby tourists", Saudi students, etc. Then let that law stand until SCOTUS gets it. By then, they likely will face a situation of one dubious interpretation of the 14th threatening to undermine greater parts of the Constitution itself.
I do note that there is a contingent that looks at the individual Chicom baby and says "how harmless!"....just as Bush cast it down to an individual level of how harmless it was for a noble hard-working law abiding Mexican to come here "willing to do the jobs no American will do".
Problem is that we have 20 million illegals plus 20 million more with "family/relative reunification" if Amnesty is passed. Plus 30 million here with few skills - the GIFT of legal immigration and the high birthrates of legal and illegal unskilled 3rd Worlders now here.
And we have whole Palestinian and Yemeni villages transplanted to Michigan in wholly Legal immigration after the first well-meaning "noble refugee" visa was issued to Palestinian refugee of Jordans political persecution for radicalism in the 1970s..or a Yemeni "holy mujahadeed freedom fighter" in Reagans parlance got in, with his 4 wives and 31 children following.
An acquaintence of mine lives on a Caribbean Island that is a now independent former British colony. His grandfather or perhaps great grandfather migrated there from Europe way back in the day.
He, along with his wife, brothers, children and everyone else in the family going back 50 years or so was born in Canada.
The women, when they get close to their time, go to Toronto where they stay til the baby is born.
The reason? While his country looks pretty stable, these things can go poof overnight. they have no plans to leave but if they do, can move to Canada with no immigration issues at all.
He also, as a Canadian citizen, got a break on his tuition when he went to McGill University.
Because of silly European citizenship laws, he is still legally a citizen of the European country because he is an ethnic . And, he is also a citizen of the island nation.
He has 3 passports, Canadian, European and Caribean Union.
John Henry
Plug the damn (loop) hole.
I do note that there is a contingent that looks at the individual Chicom baby ...
A Commie baby! BWAAAHAHAHAHAAAA...
Word verification: itzative
Mick,
You keep going on and on (and on and on and on) that children born to non-US citizens in the US are subject to control of their parent's countries.
They might be in some cases. In other cases they might not be. It would depend on the citizenship laws of the parent's country.
But that is all bye the bye.
Our 14th Amendment doesn't require that one NOT be subject to jurisdiction of another country. It only requires that the infant be subject to the jurisdiction of the US. Not even the sole jurisdiction of the US.
Anyone in the US, legally or illegally. Permanently or temporarily, is subject to the jurisdiction of the US while here.
The only exception is diplomats who get diplomatic immunity.
So, just based on a strict reading of the 14th Amendment, anyone born here will be a US citizen.
BTW: A child born to a US citizen who happens to be vacationing in Mexico will have irrevocable Mexican citizenship. Just like the Mexican woman giving birth in the US.
Also, why do we never hear about Canadians? Lots of Canadian women are sent by the Canadian govt to the US to have their babies each year. The reason is a lack of obstetric facilities in Canada's wonderful healthcare facilities.
John Henry
My wife is Taiwanese. She applied for a tourist visa to the USA when she was pregnant with our daughter. Since I am an American citizen, it wouldn't have mattered anyways, but the visa office in Taipei hassled her repeatedly about this.
Oh, by the way, none of these people are told that their global incomes will be subject to US taxes...I bet that would cut down on this big time. (for the rich folks.)
Another simple way to cut down anchor babies from China would be to require citizens to do military service. Trust me, they would immediately apply to revoke their citizenship.
"In their pitch to prospective clients, Zhou and Chao point out that as a U.S. citizen, a child has access to free public education from primary school through high school and that a full education in the United States can be much cheaper than at the top Chinese private schools and universities."
As my wife is Taiwanese, we meet all the local Taiwanese folks in our city in California. Some of them are quite wealthy and "immigrate" to the USA to have their children do high school and university here. Once complete they return to Taiwan. Thanks USA!
If they paid taxes on their global income, I would be okay with that, I guess. The kids do sometimes end up remaining in the States. But I strongly suspect the parents "forget" to report their rental incomes they get from their numerous land holdings in Taipei when they pay taxes. In fact, they probably have ZERO income on the books. Hopefully they are not crass enough to apply for food stamps.
danielle wrote: Plug the damn (loop) hole.
That's catchy!
Citizenship only really means something important if it is the same as being born to a family. You belong. The belonging is the default state and significant action has to be taken to remove your belonging.
This is why I strongly favor our way of counting as a citizen anyone born in this country, just for being born. Or anyone born of a US citizen parent abroad. One parent, not two.
Mick's ridiculous goings on, OTOH, make citizenship something flimsy and unsure. So would any less simple metric make citizenship something flimsy and unsure.
I would hate to see the practice change so that we no longer claimed those born "on the wrong side of the blanket" or anyone else we felt didn't quite measure up because they were born to US citizens abroad or their parent wasn't an adult or married or anything else... born during the "leap second" to reset clocks so not existing in time and space... a cloned child...
We have a very simple system that has two criteria. Born to a US citizen or born on US soil.
If it has to do with identity then that is actually the strongest way to do it.
No particular reason, however, to let parents stay or to usurp their parental dominion until the child reaches adulthood and can chose repatriation for him or herself.
So, aside from the anchor baby argument, I have a question:
Does the family plan on staying here after (with their new citizen) or returning to their native country? The article said that most of the clients' intents were to return home.
So, we're allowing the birth of citizens that will never know what it is to be American, and will very likely hail to their parents' native country? That's safe?
No, it's not safe, especially when the country they hale from is Yeman, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan. You get my point.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा