Birthright Citizenship

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves. Citizenship was, at that time, primarily determined by the states. This amendment was intended to prevent states from denying rights of citizenship to Blacks. Natives were denied citizenship until 1924 because they were tribal members, and their alligences were viewed as divided. The legislatiive intent of a law is supposed to be a primary consideration in the SCOTUS process of legal interpretation. They fvcked up big time when they created birthright citizenship. They've fvcked up and corrected themselves before, the Dred Scott decision being a fundamental example of that.

Despite being a beneficiary of birthright citizenship, I am against it.

[Misha & Ira 113]

1883? As if American immigration policy today in a 21st century 1st world industrialized welfare state should be run like it was in 1883? I don't buy it nor is it in the best interests of the vast majority of the American people. People tend to romanticize American immigration history through rose colored glasses or horse blinders. They see what they want to see and ignore stuff that doesn't fit their prenotions. America severely cut immigration in the 1920's and it remained a low immigration country well into the early 1970's. Immigration used to be about growing and prospering the country. Instead large numbers of immigrant families are on public assistance themselves or through their US born children. Immigration should not be a charity event to make liberals feel good about themselves at public expense. The days of importing an endless stream of uneducated, unskilled, and dependent immigrants both legal and illegal should have ended long ago or should at least be adjusted to reflect the high chronic American unemployment we now suffer with. There are literally billions of poverty stricken peoples all around the world. Importing them to America is not the answer nor is it in the best interests of the American people. American immigration policy should be a lot more selective and stricter to modernize into the 21st century.

I don't know where you get the notion that I would support using my money or yours to support immigration. These are two different topics Peejay. In 1883 no one came here and sat collecting welfare, they either worked or starved. I believe that the welfare policies of this country need a good hard looking at.

As for the high chronic American unemployment, with more than half the country believing that making a profit is a sin and that people who make money owe it to them to provide for everyone, that is the issue that needs to be addressed and their rose colored glasses smashed. With a public education system that churns out economic illiterates that believes that money is just printed to be distributed like candy and everyone deserves a fair share whether they do something productive or not we are doomed to chronic umemployement and worse.

This is the problem as we shed the 'outdated' principles that made us great and prepare ourselves for our 'modern' reality. It is this narrow minded thinking that has gotten us to where we are today...tottering on the bring of bankruptcy...a laughingstock of a country that made itself great by individual responsibility, hard work and and freedom from an overbearing government in every aspect of our lives.

Anchor babies and birthright citizenship are not the problem...it is a rotting of our core values, the values that this country was founded on that is the real problem.

[Leatherneck 693]

The Fourteenth Amendment was intended to guarantee citizenship to freed slaves. Citizenship was, at that time, primarily determined by the states. This amendment was intended to prevent states from denying rights of citizenship to Blacks. Natives were denied citizenship until 1924 because they were tribal members, and their alligences were viewed as divided. The legislatiive intent of a law is supposed to be a primary consideration in the SCOTUS process of legal interpretation. They fvcked up big time when they created birthright citizenship. They've fvcked up and corrected themselves before, the Dred Scott decision being a fundamental example of that.

Despite being a beneficiary of birthright citizenship, I am against it.

I agree totally with your comment. In the case of United States v. Wonk Kim Ark the SCOTUS really blew it big time, the legislative intent was clear then and is very clear now. Nothing confusing about the legislative intent of the 14th Amendment nor these seven simple words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Just as they screwwd up in Plessy v. Fergusson (1896) then fixed their mess in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954).

Now this country needs a modern fix for the major ** up of United States v. Wonk Kim Ark.

[Girl from Celebes 588]

I would not agreed if some people use a hole to cheat the laws. I my self would refused it loudly. Why? I'm genuinely wanted to see my then bf (my fiance now) after dating for more than 2 years. Embassy did not issued me a visa, instead put note on green ticket that I had to file K-1 visa. But some other people easily use tourist visa to have baby in US. That's crazy.

I wasn't mad at constitution, laws, or whatever it is. I was mad that with the flaw of this, people would easily cheat especially the rich ones. Have you ever read article why Chinese women love go to US soil to give birth. They wanted a citizenship for their babies. I'm not hate Chinese people, because I'm an half of Chinese blood. I hate when they take opportunity of the hole. This article sickened me.

Pregnant and Bound for America: Why Chinese Moms Want to Give Birth on U.S. Soil

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2077693,00.html#ixzz1c9FdqydM

This post is in partnership with

Worldcrunch, a new global—news site that translates stories of note in foreign languages into English. The article below was originally published in Economic Observer.

When Liu Li boarded a plane for the United States, she had a little bit of makeup on, was wearing a loose dress, and had her hair up. She tried to hold her handbag in front of her belly in a natural way, just as the middleman had taught her. She was trying to look as calm as any wealthy Chinese lady would look when travelling abroad. But Liu Li couldn't help feeling terribly nervous: she was six months pregnant when she left for the United States, where she wanted to give birth to an American citizen.

(See: "On the Cutting Edge — China's Extraordinary Buildings")

Liu Li knew that going through customs would be a lot easier than obtaining a U.S. visa. In order to obtain the tourist visa that enabled her to go to America for the delivery, she had to carefully choose her clothes, and spend a lot of time practicing her walking and interview techniques. She memorized a host of details about her hotel booking and about famous sight-seeing spots so as to convince the Embassy officer that she was just another Chinese woman going shopping in the States.

The temptation of a 'born in the USA' child

Giving birth to a child abroad is not a privilege reserved to the stars and the very wealthy. An increasing number of expectant middle-class parents also fancy giving their children passports that they can feel proud of. "The return on investment is higher than robbing a bank," the consultancy agent tells women such as Liu. When Chinese children are born in America, they automatically become U.S. citizens. Once they reach 21, their parents will be able to apply for green cards and emigrate.

Those who would prefer a closer destination can go to Hong Kong, whose passport gives access to more than 120 countries without the need of a visa. Advantages include the fact that children will receive bilingual education (which will give them a foothold in the international world), and the fact that they will also enjoy the preferential policies for going to Chinese universities.

After consulting quite a few agencies for expectant mothers, Liu Li chose a reputable one. Airplane tickets, fees for labor, pre- and post-delivery care cost her roughly 20,000. Since most airlines refuse to accept women passengers who are more than 32 weeks pregnant, Liu Li set off for America when she was six months pregnant and then checked into a Chinese birthing center in California.

After her arrival, Liu Li realized that the area was full of facilities set up for Chinese women like herself. On the limited occasions when Liu Li goes to the Punete Hill Mall near her birthing center — the facility limits walks outside its premises to three per week, each time for about three hours — Liu Li bumps into lots of pregnant Chinese women. Birthing centers such as Liu Li's, which are mostly situated in America's beautiful west coastal areas, operate without a business license, and try to be as discreet as possible. In April, a number of illegally converted maternity centers in Los Angeles were discovered and shut down, which makes Liu Li very nervous.

(See: "China Stamps Out Democracy Protests")

Incompatible nationalities

Going to the United States to give birth and taking a foreign born child back to China usually proves relatively easy. The difficult part starts only later, as Song Jingwen is starting to understand. Because her son has a U.S. passport, the law does not allow him to be registered in his mother's local area, which means that he will not be automatically admitted to Chinese schools. Song will have to register him as a foreigner, and pay an extra fee. His access to education and health care also faces a lot of constraints.

"Some parents obtain fake birth certificates for their children, or cheat the Chinese Embassy to get them Chinese passports. But then they can't get visas or go abroad," Song explains. She is still hesitating on what to do next. If Song gets her son a fake hukou (the Chinese registration system), which would make it easier for him to go to a local school, she fears that all the efforts she has made up to now could be in vain.

A few years ago, Zhao Yong easily obtained a Shanghai hukou for his American born child. "Every time we want to go to the States, we have to get the Hongkong-Macao permit to go though Chinese customs, go to Hong Kong, then fly to the United States and enter the country with the American passport," Zhao Yong says. "The trip is a little bit complicated, but if we fly directly from Shanghai to the States, we won't be able to hide the truth."

Under Chinese law, double nationality is prohibited. According to the American Embassy, once a child has obtained a Chinese hukou, he is considered to have given up his American nationality. The United States is not the only country with strict regulations. A child born in Hong Kong doesn't get the Hong Kong resident identity card right away, but has to go back to Hong Kong regularly — every year or two until he is 18 — in order to register as a "returned resident," and keep his nationality.

The so-called 'citizen's welfare'

According to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. constitution (ratified in 1868), anyone born in United States automatically becomes an American citizen and obtains access to public education, university loans, voting, and so on... Even so, if one does not work in America or pay taxes after the age of 15, one can only enjoy very limited access to U.S. welfare benefits. "The system doesn't totally exclude people who don't pay taxes here, but those who do not pay as much tax as Americans do cannot expect the same benefits. But each state has different regulations," says Mr. Yang, a Chinese born man who works in New Jersey and has a green card.

"Giving birth to a child in the States is a wonderful dream, but a very costly one too," Song Jingwen concludes. "People who choose to go down this path must know that they will not be paying only for birthing and post birthing care, but they will also be paying a lot more for the whole life."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2077693,00.html#ixzz1c9FXgZrJ

[BlueBonnet 84]

My vote is yes. It is ones birthright to be a citizen of the country they were born in.

A few years ago a Canadian couple traveled to the US for whatever reason. She was 6 months or so pregnant. While in the USA her baby came prematurely. It was a hassle for them and the government stepped in ( both the US and Canadian ) and helped with the babies papers. He is a US citizen by birth, but his parents didnt want to raise him here. The parents also had no insurance ( we dont pay for anything like this in Canada and the birth wasnt planned )and they had to pay the fees for the birth to the US hosipital that the baby was born in. They took him back to Canada to raise him and he will have duo citizenship.

In the above case, there was no intent on the baby being born in the US.

Its a fine line, there are to many factors to consider. Like with most of our visas here, spousal/fiance, its not about the this or that, it comes down to the intent. Are you with this person because you love them, or are you with them because you want a greencard ?

But this is the government, and the law. It isnt always fair, but needs to be a straight line across the board fit for the majority. One rule, and everyone abides by it.

[SMOKE 1,426]

So long as that mentality doesn't apply to the 2nd Amendment, right?

it does apply to the 2nd amendment. you can't go down to the gun store & buy shoulder fired missles, flame throwers, or full auto assault rifles. can you?

[sachinky 465]

In the above case, there was no intent on the baby being born in the US.

Sure, maybe not for the Canadian couple but have you read about Chinese birth tourism where pregnant Chinese women come over to the US for the express purpose to give birth so that their child has US citizenship? It's apparently a booming industry.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sure, maybe not for the Canadian couple but have you read about Chinese birth tourism where pregnant Chinese women come over to the US for the express purpose to give birth so that their child has US citizenship? It's apparently a booming industry.

In the mid-1970's my then supervisor, a naturalized US citizen from China, regularly sponsored visas for pregnant relatives and friends from China and Taiwan to give birth to anchor babies in the US. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she wasn't behind some of the Chinese anchor baby tourism mills today.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Sofiyya

[Dakine10 5,452]

In the mid-1970's my then supervisor, a naturalized US citizen from China, regularly sponsored visas for pregnant relatives and friends from China and Taiwan to give birth to anchor babies in the US. I wouldn't be at all surprised if she wasn't behind some of the Chinese anchor baby tourism mills today.

They could also address that by making a descent type of clause like many countries have (for different reasons).

Make it (for example) that if US citizenship is conferred by birth, at least one parent must be a USC or the child is ineligible to sponsor parents for immigration. This would solve the problem of "anchor babies" while still allowing the baby to be a USC.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Yet Obama refuses to enforce the law. Where is the outrage by the libs that continually whine about "rule of law"? Obama deserves to be dumped for this and many other transgressions in 2012. He is a liar that lies by omitting the facts depending what audience he wishes to bamboozle.

You are blinded by hatred that a black man has become the President of the United States. Let me give you some information on why the President used his executive power to tell the immigration enforcement guys to focus on criminals, first and foremost: it's to save you, and me, and all of the American People MONEY!

There are an estimated 11,000,000 illegal aliens in the U.S., maybe millions more. Deporting a single one costs us, the American taxpayers, about $11,500 on average. Multiplied by 11 million that's $1,265,000,000,000,000.00. Yep. We don't have that kind of cash, not even a fraction of it; in fact, we are so deeply in debt that we maxed out all of our credit cards. That's why we just recently had the issue with raising the debt ceiling. The U.S. government came very close to declaring bankcruptcy.

Furthermore, if we deport about 250,000 illegal aliens per year, it would take us 44 years to deport all 11 million. We can't deport more, because that would cost money, more money for CBP and ICE agents, more money for judges, more money for deportation centers, and so on. But we don't have more money, and we, the American taxpayers don't want to pay more to deport more.

So that's the background.

With cash available to deport up to about 360,000 illegal aliens per year, all of them on credit, the President said to the immigration folks: listen, try to grab the criminals first, before you kick in the doors of school houses and drag children out, or even the little guy who works hard to support his family.

That's the issue at hand: the biggest bang for our buck.

It has nothing to do with not wanting to deport 11 million people. It has everything to do with not having the money and resources and agents, and judges, and detention centers and time to do that.

Is that really so difficult to understand? It's about money. Everything is about money in the U.S.!

Obama may be a god-dam corporatist like the rest of them, but he again broke his own world record in deportations: an unimaginable 400,000 people in the 2011 fiscal year, a number no previous President could even dream of. He is the king of deportations, by a wide margin! How much better would he have to do before you stop rambling and acknowledge his enormous and unprecedented achievements in immigration enforcement?

Edited October 30, 2011 by Brother Hesekiel

[웃 910]

Edited October 30, 2011 by Lord Infamous

[DEDixon 39]

and they take their children back to their homeland, raise them and when the become adult they come to "a land which is completely foreign to them to live."

OMG, this is so funny... isn't that what the left use to jusify children of illegals stay here, because if they have to follow their parents home, they are in a land that is strange to them? can we say WHOOPIE!!!!!

[Rebecca616 38]

wouldnt it be easier if women tourists/students had to have a pregnancy test completed as part of their visa process? Sorry for my ignorance if there are laws im not aware of that may violate foreign womans rights to ask of such a thing.

[xebec 195]

You are blinded by hatred that a black man has become the President of the United States.

How do you get that from peejay's quoted post? Enlighten me.....I'm working on my reading skills here.....

Edited October 30, 2011 by xebec

[Pooky 3,830]

The smoke and mirrors about the deportation numbers are widely reported, but irrelevant. Washington, Democrat and Republican alike, doesn't want the illegal alien problem solved, so they concentrate on the deportation numbers, the cost of deporting more and the "we're doing all we can for the money" excuses. It's all Washington agenda #######.

Enforce sanctions against the employers of illegal immigrants, actions against whom this administration has cut by 70%. Eliminate state and Federal aid, financial, legislative and policy alike, to illegal immigrants, adult and minor. Take away any incentive illegal immigrants might have for being here and you won't need to deport record numbers, because the ones here will start returning to their country of citizenship of their own accord, and the influx will slow significantly.

Concentrating on the deportation numbers and costs is disingenuous at best and simply a diversionary tactic. The cost of illegal immigrants remaining in this country, on the unemployment of US citizens, the costs borne by state and Federal governments, and therefore by every US taxpayer, is simply ignored, because it is "inconvenient" to the Washington machine.