Trump: End birthright citizenship for some US-born babies

[lierre 224]

15 minutes ago, Boiler said:

 

You are not an Immigrant if you do not have legal status, seems to be discussing illegals?

 

The subject of the article is the potential loss of legal status of birthright US citizens.

 

 

 

[Boiler 45,486]

19 minutes ago, lierre said:

 

The subject of the article is the potential loss of legal status of birthright US citizens.

 

Somebody is suggesting it would be backdated?

[lierre 224]

4 minutes ago, Boiler said:

Somebody is suggesting it would be backdated?

 

Again, here's the link for your perusal: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-30/trump-s-birthright-citizenship-ban-could-pose-risks-for-economy

 

Quote

Immigrants and their children are expected to count for 93 percent of the growth in America’s working-age population through 2050, according to a Pew Research Center analysis from 2013...

'The bigger effect would be just to turn more people who would be U.S. citizens into undocumented people,' said Jennifer Hunt, an economics professor at Rutgers University and former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor. The impact 'would depend on what if anything replaced birthright citizenship.'

... One effect of the loss of legal status: locking second-generation immigrants out of jobs that require background checks, among other issues...

 

 

 

[Boiler 45,486]

The question of the level of Immigration and which categories should be focussed and the needs of the Country is a very different discussion.

 

Canada for example limits family migration, so there are less incentives for someone to give birth in Canada as a future way to be able to move there through their children.

 

Why there is an assumption that people who want to give birth in the US would then wish to stay here illegally is beyond me. Would be interesting to see how the Canada figures compare.

 

 

[lierre 224]

33 minutes ago, Boiler said:

The question of the level of Immigration and which categories should be focussed and the needs of the Country is a very different discussion.

 

Canada for example limits family migration, so there are less incentives for someone to give birth in Canada as a future way to be able to move there through their children.

 

Why there is an assumption that people who want to give birth in the US would then wish to stay here illegally is beyond me. Would be interesting to see how the Canada figures compare.

 

 

 

I'm confused. Are you stating that the social and economic impacts of a change in the national policy (an amendment to the US constitution) is irrelevant to this discussion?

 

edit: re-reading it, I think you were responding to shiran’s comment

 

 

Edited October 31, 2018 by lierre

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

2 hours ago, lierre said:

 

 

It would be interesting to know how that 6% estimate was derived.

 

 

 

20 mil divided by population.

[Shiran 1,134]

1 hour ago, Boiler said:

Why there is an assumption that people who want to give birth in the US would then wish to stay here illegally is beyond me. Would be interesting to see how the Canada figures compare.

Because earlier in the thread someone made a statement "This would be the greatest thing to ever happen to the USA related to Immigration in the last 100 years.  This would do a lot to stop illegal aliens coming to the USA.  Many of them main goal is to come here to have a child born in the USA." A point, that doesn't appear to be back by statistics. Rising birth tourism from Chinese, Russian etc citizens is a thing, but those do not enter or stay in US illegally. Or at all after childbirth.

[Dashinka 24,492]

4 hours ago, Keith & Arileidi said:

Anti immagrant can mean alot of things, inclding being in support of legislation against immagrants in general. 

And..

Trump is going pretty deep with those anti immgrant initiatives. 

 

 

So if someone is for having laws to protect the borders and control immigration they are anti-immigrant?  Is that why the MDL seems to be embracing open borders?

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

3 minutes ago, Shiran said:

Because earlier in the thread someone made a statement "This would be the greatest thing to ever happen to the USA related to Immigration in the last 100 years.  This would do a lot to stop illegal aliens coming to the USA.  Many of them main goal is to come here to have a child born in the USA." A point, that doesn't appear to be back by statistics. Rising birth tourism from Chinese, Russian etc citizens is a thing, but those do not enter or stay in US illegally. Or at all after childbirth.

And yet, “maternity hotels” charge immigrants $80,000 to stay and have babies there.  Seems like a self-sustaining enterprise to me.  

[Shiran 1,134]

8 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

And yet, “maternity hotels” charge immigrants $80,000 to stay and have babies there.  Seems like a self-sustaining enterprise to me.  

Correct, birthing tourism does support a nice niche economy that caters to it, caretakers, midwifes, shopping, etc. It actually cost about $30000 on average. Amount of women who do that has been rising steadily, I believe it is around 80,000 a year or so currently. 

Edited October 31, 2018 by Shiran

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

1 minute ago, Shiran said:

Correct, birthing tourism does support a nice niche economy that caters to it, caretakers, midwifes, shopping, etc. It actually cost about $30000 on average. Amount of women who do that has been rising steadily, I believe it is arounf 80,000 a year or so currently. 

I was once offered $10,000 to “marry” a Korean and allow her to get her USC.  Those who think it’s not being done, at multiple levels, are simply blind.

[Shiran 1,134]

24 minutes ago, Satisfied said:

I was once offered $10,000 to “marry” a Korean and allow her to get her USC.  Those who think it’s not being done, at multiple levels, are simply blind.

$10000 for 5 years doesn't seem like a good pay to me. Especially if have to cover filing fees, food, etc. But that also illegal if relationship is not bona fide. Birth tourism, when done above water, is not. 

[lierre 224]

1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

20 mil divided by population.

Sources?

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Satisfied said:

I was once offered $10,000 to “marry” a Korean and allow her to get her USC.  Those who think it’s not being done, at multiple levels, are simply blind.

we both know its done all the time 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Shiran said:

$10000 for 5 years doesn't seem like a good pay to me. Especially if have to cover filing fees, food, etc. But that also illegal if relationship is not bona fide. Birth tourism, when done above water, is not. 

You dont have to stay together but 2 years Technically. I know several that left after a few months and did not get sent home