Support NeoGAF

[The Adder]

What about illegal Mexican immigrants who have children in the US? Let's not go down a slippery slope.

I would make the argument that there is a major difference between people trying to start a life in the US, people who want to be Americans (Chinese American, Mexican American, Ethiopian American, or whatever else), whether they came here legally or not, and people who just want their kids to have the benefits of an American citizenship while basically being a citizen of another country in all but name.

Now, I may have misinterpreted intent in what I read of the article, but if I'm correct in what I'm reading as the goal here then there is absolutely a difference. Though I still wouldn't want anyone to try to "fix" this.

 

[Piecake]

The 14th amendment is the 14th amendment. You can bash the Chinese visa tourists because they are a easy target, but they're just looking to provide a better life for their children, just like all other immigrants to America.

What about illegal Mexican immigrants who have children in the US? Let's not go down a slippery slope.

What slippery slope? I think there is a pretty clear difference between someone who actually lives in America and someone who was born here, left immediately, and grew up in another country.

I know you did not say this, but others have, so I will also argue that just because a person is against maternity tourism does not mean they want to make citizenship more difficult. I would like to see citizenship made easier, especially for children. Why? Well, these people actually live here.

I do agree that the most effective and safe measure would be to crack down on the Visa's of these maternity tourists and fight it that way.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

All you have to do is crack down on companies described in the OP and also be more strict on visas for pregnant tourists. Most problems mostly solved.

Edit: Will those kids/teens/adults start paying taxes once they start working overseas, though?

 

[Espada]

While I think that babies born in the U.S. because of birth tourism should get U.S. citizenship, I think it's a massive slap in the face to people who went through the long and costly process of naturalization to earn the privilege of being Americans.

If we really want to curb this abuse, just make it ridiculously difficult for pregnant women from getting visas to enter the U.S.

I would make the argument that there is a major difference between people trying to start a life in the US, people who want to be Americans (Chinese American, Mexican American, Ethiopian American, or whatever else), whether they came here legally or not, and people who just want their kids to have the benefits of an American citizenship while basically being a citizen of another country in all but name.

Yeah, that doesn't sit well with me. There has to be some way of weeding out people who truly want to start new lives in the U.S. and those looking to game the system.

 

[HisImperialMajesty]

Those that are using the kids to take advantage of the benefits that it comes with it then yeah they should have theirs taken away. Some just move over here to have better lives and I know many that have kids and the only thing they get from the government is school.

Who didn't come to America to have a better life? There's always going to be loopholes in the system. Who's to say that the children of these birth tourists won't grow up to contribute to American society?

If you're born in the US, you are an American citizen, period. Once you start restricting that, you go down a slippery slope. What other "undesirables" do you think will start being excluded from American citizenship once the far right gets into the game?

Just see this as payback for the Chinese exclusion act ; )

 

[Valhelm]

Yes. Please keep birthright citizenship.

too much potential for abuse and shenanigans if we remove it.



When the laws were written, we bordered territories owned by multiple European powers and Native lands... planes are irrelevant as you could easily come from "elsewhere" even back then.

But citizenship wasn't cut and dry. Somebody from Canada, I believe, was not recognized as a full British citizen. And nearly every border between the United States and another nation's colony was a mostly undeveloped frontier. Crossing from an urban part of Canada to an urban part of the United States would be quite difficult, and much worse if you're departing from a Spanish territory.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

ICE does massive deportations of immigrants stuck in the middle ground of legality. Some are childrrn, some are these parents. Families torn apart.

 

[HisImperialMajesty]

While I think that babies born in the U.S. because of birth tourism should get U.S. citizenship, I think it's a massive slap in the face to people who went through the long and costly process of naturalization to earn the privilege of being Americans.

If we really want to curb this abuse, just make it ridiculously difficult for pregnant women from getting visas to enter the U.S.



Yeah, that doesn't sit well with me. There has to be some way of weeding out people who truly want to start new lives in the U.S. and those looking to game the system.

Who gets to decide that? I think different groups in America will have different opinions on who is trying to "game the system". Why don't we ask the Tea Party for their opinion. Once we start deciding who's the "right kind of American", we go down a slippery slope.

The 14th Amendment has always been an important American institution. Let's not mess with it.

 

[Frog-fu]

I'm not a US citizen, but I've studied the US constitution and from my understanding the answer is categorically yes. It's the birthright of every child born on US soil and territory if I'm not mistaken.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I'm not a US citizen, but I've studied the US constitution and from my understanding the answer is categorically yes. It's the birthright of every child born on US soil and territory if I'm not mistaken.

I feel like people aren't reading the title. It says "should", not "would". That invites the reader to make moral arguments as to why it *should* the case, and not a legal explanation of why it *would* be the case.

 

[WalkMan]

We should evaluate this from a national security standpoint as well. How many of these babies are planned into being sleeper agents that hold US citizenship?

 

[Frog-fu]

I feel like people aren't reading the title. It says "should", not "would". That invites the reader to make moral arguments as to why it *should* the case, and not a legal explanation of why it *would* be the case.

In that case, my answer remains unchanged, yes, the US should absolutely grant citizenship to all children born on their soil, as should any other nation in the world in my opinion. It may be somewhat unfair, but the child has no choosing in the circumstances of their birth and parents wouldn't flock to the US to secure the child's citizenship if it were not for granting him a better life. If the alternative is to deny the child US citizenship and thereby effectively condemn him to a more difficult life, potentially or actually, directly or indirectly, then the moral argument is obvious.

More to the point, if the US, which is essentially the immigrant nation of the world, is going to crack down on poor immigrants trying to build a better life in pursuit of happiness, that is to say the American Dream, whatever that may be, but then turn a blind eye to far more costly and troublesome issues such as corporate tax loopholes, then I find that stance lacking in morality and conscionability.

To other immigrants that have or are still going to the process that are so vehemently oppossed to gaming the system this way: taking away citizenship from the children born from marternity tourists doesn't necessarily mean your process will be expediated or successful. This is not necessarily a zero-sum game even though it may look that way prima facie. You gain nothing from pitting against one another.

 

[HisImperialMajesty]

What slippery slope? I think there is a pretty clear difference between someone who actually lives in America and someone who was born here, left immediately, and grew up in another country.

I know you did not say this, but others have, so I will also argue that just because a person is against maternity tourism does not mean they want to make citizenship more difficult. I would like to see citizenship made easier, especially for children. Why? Well, these people actually live here.

I do agree that the most effective and safe measure would be to crack down on the Visa's of these maternity tourists and fight it that way.

A lot of Chinese families send their children to live with their grandparents for the first couple of years. So these kids are born in America, grow up in China with their grandparents and then come back during elementary or middle school, or even later. I, myself, know many family members who did that.

And honestly, this country has such a disgusting history of excluding Chinese immigrants that I don't really care if this is exploiting a loophole.

 

[freeofgreed]

Of course they should. How does somebody doing this affect you in anyway? Also even if it is "abuse" it still boils down to a parent trying to give their child a better life and idk why the child should be punished for that.

 

[Espada]

Who gets to decide that? I think different groups in America will have different opinions on who is trying to "game the system". Why don't we ask the Tea Party for their opinion. Once we start deciding who's the "right kind of American", we go down a slippery slope.

The 14th Amendment has always been an important American institution. Let's not mess with it.

I'm not saying to mess with the 14th Amendment, but for tighter controls to be put in place to prevent this from happening. It shouldn't be too hard to suss out people who are going to pop out a kid and then immediately bolt back to the country they actually call home (read: Not the United States.). The first step is to find and eliminate these birth tourism companies.

Of course they should. How does somebody doing this affect you in anyway? Also even if it is "abuse" it still boils down to a parent trying to give their child a better life and idk why the child should be punis

I don't hold a parent's desire to give their child a better life as unassailable. If parents seeking every possible advantage for their child exploit things to get their way, or hurt other people's children (as is the case with Asian parents fighting with California's universities because black and hispanic kids are getting in over their own) it should be called out.

 

[Vilam]

Absolutely not.

As much as I despise the use of "anchor baby" rhetoric as a way to restrict the rights of Mexican immigrants, this is a pretty clear abuse of the system. I'm not sure what should be done about it.

This is no better or worse of a practice than when immigrants do it to gain a foothold here. It's an abuse of the spirit of the law (which needs revision).

 

[Log4Girlz]

I'm not a US citizen, but I've studied the US constitution and from my understanding the answer is categorically yes. It's the birthright of every child born on US soil and territory if I'm not mistaken.

Not in American Samoa

 

[Deleted member 231381]

In that case, my answer remains unchanged, yes, the US should absolutely grant citizenship to all children born on their soil, as should any other nation in the world in my opinion. It may be somewhat unfair, but the child has no choosing in the circumstances of their birth and parents wouldn't flock to the US to secure the child's citizenship if it were not for granting him a better life. If the alternative is to deny the child US citizenship and thereby effectively condemn him to a more difficult life, potentially or actually, directly or indirectly, then the moral argument is obvious.

Okay, but this argument extends further to conclusions I don't think you can defend. No child has any choosing in the circumstances of their birth - whether they be a child born to illegal immigrants in the United States or a child born to people suffering in the South Sudan famine. Denying US citizenship to the child born in South Sudan is condemning him to a more difficult life - therefore, we should extend US citizenships not only to children in the United States, but all children, everywhere.

I'm not saying this is an entirely senseless argument - it's one international anarchists make regularly - but the argument is more complex than it appears.

More to the point, if the US, which is essentially the immigrant nation of the world, is going to crack down on poor immigrants trying to build a better life in pursuit of happiness, that is to say the American Dream, whatever that may be, but then turn a blind eye to far more costly and troublesome issues such as corporate tax loopholes, then I find that stance lacking in morality and conscionability.

This is what-aboutery. The US can probably do both.

To other immigrants that have or are still going to the process that are so vehemently oppossed to gaming the system this way: taking away citizenship from the children born from marternity tourists doesn't necessarily mean your process will be expediated or successful. This is not necessarily a zero-sum game even though it may look that way prima facie. You gain nothing from pitting against one another.

Agreed, but this isn't an argument for, this is a rebuttal of an argument against.

 

[freeofgreed]

I don't hold a parent's desire to give their child a better life as unassailable. If parents seeking every possible advantage for their child exploit things to get their way, or hurt other people's children (as is the case with Asian parents fighting with California's universities because black and hispanic kids are getting in over their own) it should be called out.

Yes but unlike with the case with the universities, them giving birth in the states isn't negatively impacting anyone else. There's no limit on the amount of citizenship like there is for university seats.

 

[uncredited male]

It is kind of odd that American Samoa is just US nationals while other places like Puerto Rico are full citizens. At least they have a pretty quick path to citizenship if they are in the US.

 

[Espada]

Yes but unlike with the case with the universities, them giving birth in the states isn't negatively impacting anyone else. There's no limit on the amount of citizenship like there is for university seats.

From a security perspective, the argument could be made that leaving this as is could ultimately hurt us. These children are most likely going to grow up as citizens of a foreign country with their values, ideals, culture, etc... but with the ability to return to the U.S. at any time without questions.

It's nothing to worry about for most countries, but if they were to be raised in an extremist country unfriendly to our way of life it'd be an issue.

 

[lowhighkang_LHK]

The United States needs to crack down things that take advantage of the "grey area." Because ultimately it makes it more difficult for those who are trying to get citizenship via non-grey area legal means. I'm not saying what this mother did was illegal, but it was clearly in the grey-area.

Increase in population makes various public and large services incredibly more difficult. Healthcare, Education, Law Enforcement, Food Production / Resource Consumption, Sewage, Pollution, Disease containment, Population congestion etc.

Now, of course - more poeple, more chances that you'll get more doctors, engineers, artists, inventors, researchers, teachers, military, social service providers, business owners etc.

The hope is the ratio of those who contribute to society versus those who don't is favorable with the population increase.

 

[rokkerkory]

I don't think so

 

[ArkhamFantasy]

I dont blame people for wanting to leave a bad situation and come to a country where they are much better off.

 

[freeofgreed]

From a security perspective, the argument could be made that leaving this as is could ultimately hurt us. These children are most likely going to grow up as citizens of a foreign country with their values, ideals, culture, etc... but with the ability to return to the U.S. at any time without questions.

It's nothing to worry about for most countries, but if they were to be raised in an extremist country unfriendly to our way of life it'd be an issue.

Yes but how would you regulate that then? In this specific case I don't think your example would be very relevant. Also if an extremist wanted to come to the US, I doubt citizenship would help them all that much.

 

[Frog-fu]

Okay, but this argument extends further to conclusions I don't think you can defend. No child has any choosing in the circumstances of their birth - whether they be a child born to illegal immigrants in the United States or a child born to people suffering in the South Sudan famine. Denying US citizenship to the child born in South Sudan is condemning him to a more difficult life - therefore, we should extend US citizenships not only to children in the United States, but all children, everywhere.

I'm not saying this is an entirely senseless argument - it's one international anarchists make regularly - but the argument is more complex than it appears.

Children born in South Sudan can still obtain US citizen albeit not by birthright through the system, but that's a matter of logistics. The proposed question is a matter of practicality, accesibility and moral obligations within those confines. If a child is born on US soil, albeit through gaming the system, on what grounds do you propose their birthright should be denied and, more importantly, why? The child is already here. Its opportunities for health, success and opportunity in life are already orders of magnitude superior than the vast majority of the world. I cannot think of a single justification for taking that away from the child. It would be morally abhorrent to do so.

This is what-aboutery. The US can probably do both.

Can, but hasn't, and likely won't for the foreseeable future, so why should people get up in arms over a neglible amount of children receiving a better chance at life than they otherwise would have? It doesn't affect the average children. Besides, there's an inherent, inescapable element of hypocrisy to objections against it. America is a bastion of immigrants, founded and upheld by immigrants.

 

[Espada]

Yes but how would you regulate that then? In this specific case I don't think your example would be very relevant. Also if an extremist wanted to come to the US, I doubt citizenship would help them all that much.

In this case? No, my example wouldn't be very relevant. As I stated before, the kid should get U.S. citizenship, and the unscrupulous companies behind this stuff should be investigated and dealt with accordingly. I just pointed out a situation in which a lack of controls on birth tourism could be a security concern in the future.

 

[DeaviL]

Looking at it differently, how many people can even afford this kind of "tourism"?
Not quite enough to form even the smallest blip on the radar i can imagine.

 

[Madness]

As much as I despise the use of "anchor baby" rhetoric as a way to restrict the rights of Mexican immigrants, this is a pretty clear abuse of the system. I'm not sure what should be done about it.

Aside from the US and Canada, no other western country has birthright citizenship like this. You can't just say oh, I'll run across the border into Germany, give birth and all of a sudden my child will be German and granted citizenship, like you can in the US.

Most European nations require that either one or both of your parents are citizens in your country before being born. Maybe that's the next logical step for US/Canada. You won't believe how many people in India or China pay doctors to say they're only 3 months pregnant and cleared to fly, but are in reality 7-8 months pregnant, and give birth when they reach Canada or the US, and bam, all of a sudden they are citizens and granted full citizenship, and the parents of the children won't be deported on humanitarian grounds. It's worse for the US, since a lot of people in the world want American citizenship as the sole superpower.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Prevent visas from pregnant people of countries participating in this. As a general principle though, I think jus soli is an incredibly beautiful thing.

What about the Americans who go to Canada to have their baby because the hospital bill will be cheaper for them?

Except that doesn't happen. Maybe it's cheaper to give birth in Canada than an American hospital, but it's not going to be a huge saving.

 

[SeanR1221]

My wife works on the maternity floor of a major hospital.

There are a large amount of these tourist births. A lot of times they try and track down the person for billing and can't, so free birth and free citizenship.

 

[Jarmel]

No, this is clearly cheating the system.

 

[Dega]

Yes. Any and all.

 

[Valhelm]

Absolutely not.



This is no better or worse of a practice than when immigrants do it to gain a foothold here. It's an abuse of the spirit of the law (which needs revision).

No, that's not anywhere near as bad. Because when somebody has an "anchor baby", that child will at least be raised as an American. In the circumstance described in this article, these people may never spend more than a few months on US soil.

At most, the products of these "maternity services" will spend a few years in the United States for college before returning to China.

 

[StoneFox]

Don't allow prengent women to have tourist visas. That should help.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Citizenship jus soli is one of the fundamental tenets of the United States. There is no reason to take that away because of a few people doing this. If anything, it's a reason to keep it because of the implication that America is so desirable that people will take the risk of coming here just to give birth on American soil. This is American Exceptionalism right here folks.

 

[DS-61-5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizenship_Clause

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

That was a legal term of art replacing the "not subject to any foreign power” language from the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which the 14th Amendment was designed to write into the Constitution. Chief Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion in Wong Kim Ark (1898) makes a very good case explaining 1: that was what the framers of the 14th amendment were doing and 2: why America moved away from an immutable subject of the monarch based understanding to a popular sovereign/social compact/citizen version of jus sanguinis, as is practiced in every developed country except the US and Canada.

Ever wonder what the War of 1812 was about? The authority to impress sailors from American vessels, yes, but why was that a disagreement? It's because the U.S. believed allegiance derived from creedal citizenship, with the right of a sovereign community to add and exclude membership, while the Brits thought subjecthood perpetual based on where you were born--you owed, and were owed--the protection of the crown, whether you liked him or not. The oddity of diplomats' children not being covered also seems a lot less curious if you adopt this understanding.

The congressional judiciary committees occasionally flirt with bills which change citizenship laws to match this originalist understanding of the Constitution (until he became Dem Senate majority leader, Harry Reid was one of the chief supporters of this). Even some of the architects of "comprehensive immigration reform" try to use that window as an opportunity to rectify this.

TLR The most accurate reading of the 14th Amendment would block birthright citizenship from children born to both "birth tourists" and illegal immigrants.
TLR 2: YUROP is closer to the American Constitution's definition of citizenship than 'Murica.

 

[Madness]

Don't allow prengent women to have tourist visas. That should help.

A lot of times they also pay off doctors and officials in their home countries to pretend the pregnancy is in early stages, or to grant them visas or permits. The US and Canada want the tourism money too and so they can't just start denying Chinese tourist visas on account of birth tourism fraud. Plus, for a lot of them, they are expertly dressed and know how to make it seem like they're not on the verge of giving birth. People will always abuse any system they can. It's human nature to want to better your life or your children's life in any way possible. 

 

[Valhelm]

Aside from the US and Canada, no other western country has birthright citizenship like this. You can't just say oh, I'll run across the border into Germany, give birth and all of a sudden my child will be German and granted citizenship, like you can in the US.

Most European nations require that either one or both of your parents are citizens in your country before being born. Maybe that's the next logical step for US/Canada. You won't believe how many people in India or China pay doctors to say they're only 3 months pregnant and cleared to fly, but are in reality 7-8 months pregnant, and give birth when they reach Canada or the US, and bam, all of a sudden they are citizens and granted full citizenship, and the parents of the children won't be deported on humanitarian grounds. It's worse for the US, since a lot of people in the world want American citizenship as the sole superpower.

I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that, personally. That change would mean that the children of permanent residents in the United States wouldn't be born as citizens, which is unthinkable. Immigrants from South and East Asia are the wealthiest American demographic, contributing greatly to our economy and academia. I don't want to do anything to discourage their emigration, and it's unethical to prevent their children, who have little connection to the parents' country, to not be citizens.

But this is somewhat of a different circumstance, because these people aren't immigrants. Maybe the law could be amended to revoke citizenship to people born to non-permanent residents, unless they spend at least a year of their childhood in the United States?

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Aside from the US and Canada, no other western country has birthright citizenship like this. You can't just say oh, I'll run across the border into Germany, give birth and all of a sudden my child will be German and granted citizenship, like you can in the US.

Most European nations require that either one or both of your parents are citizens in your country before being born. Maybe that's the next logical step for US/Canada. You won't believe how many people in India or China pay doctors to say they're only 3 months pregnant and cleared to fly, but are in reality 7-8 months pregnant, and give birth when they reach Canada or the US, and bam, all of a sudden they are citizens and granted full citizenship, and the parents of the children won't be deported on humanitarian grounds. It's worse for the US, since a lot of people in the world want American citizenship as the sole superpower.

"Wouldn't believe how many"? I'd like to see actual numbers on this. To me it sounds like such a small problem to necessitate such big shake ups to our constitution and cultural/national values.

Citizenship jus soli is one of the fundamental tenets of the United States. There is no reason to take that away because of a few people doing this. If anything, it's a reason to keep it because of the implication that America is so desirable that people will take the risk of coming here just to give birth on American soil. This is American Exceptionalism right here folks.

This right here. USA USA USA!!!

Spoiler

I'm Canadian >_>

I wouldn't feel comfortable doing that, personally. That change would mean that the children of permanent residents in the United States wouldn't be born as citizens, which is unthinkable. Immigrants from South and East Asia are the wealthiest American demographic, contributing greatly to our economy and academia. I don't want to do anything to discourage their emigration, and it's unethical to prevent their children, who have little connection to the parents' country, to not be citizens.

But this is somewhat of a different circumstance, because these people aren't immigrants. Maybe the law could be amended to revoke citizenship to people born to non-permanent residents, unless they spend at least a year of their childhood in the United States?

I think giving any inch to the "people born here aren't citizen if x,y,z" idea is going to open up the floodgates. I'm extra suspicious since it involves China/India, the go-to ethnic groups to restrict immigration, citizenship, voting rights to historically (at least in Canada).

 

[M3d10n]

A large chunk of the $50K that lady spent was injected directly into the American economy. It's also very likely her kid will receive top-tier education in and outside of China and if he/she ever goes back to America he/she will certainly contribute to the economy and society. How's that a bad thing?

 

[hitsugi]

Do you believe that all white people should support white supremacy?

You can do better than this.

As for the topic at hand - America will eventually need address immigration as a whole; things like this shouldn't be happening.

I think worse than the method being used in order to gain citizenship are the people cashing in on it by running maternity hotels. It's getting a little out of hand here in California.

 

[Madness]

"Wouldn't believe how many"? I'd like to see actual numbers on this. To me it sounds like such a small problem to necessitate such big shake ups to our constitution and cultural/national values.

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Birth+tourism+rise+Vancouver+Richmond/10713600/story.html

Let's just say I've also 'heard' how easy it is to do and how many are wanting to do it and leave it at that when it comes to numbers. Right now, it's a small aspect. But the challenge is in the fact it's a growing problem, unless you curb it, it only continues to grow and then becomes a tough industry to stop, especially at the home country where it becomes a viable business.

Canada doesn't have it so bad. Most Americans would rather give birth in the US, and we have no large land border with Mexico or another country where it's easy to cross and enter.

But it's not really such a shake up to our values or constitution. Most European countries are far more tolerant and accepting than us, and they still don't allow birthright citizenship unless one or more parents are citizens at the time of birth. It's very easy to curb this, but the political will must be there too. Obviously you'd take into account permanent residents and foreign nationals working and residing in the country. But how people, just visiting the country, giving birth and then getting forever citizenship and the benefits to go along with it, should be allowed or condoned, I don't know.

Unlike other people, these people have no intention of staying or living or contributing to the country either. Many leave and go back and then use the citizenship when it's convenient (ie. Purchasing real estate, needing consular or embassy services, emergency medical help).

 

[Bessy67]

My wife works on the maternity floor of a major hospital.

There are a large amount of these tourist births. A lot of times they try and track down the person for billing and can't, so free birth and free citizenship.

That's the only problem I have with it. I'm not really against people having their babies in the US to get them citizenship, but they need to pay the medical expenses and when they're going back to another country right after I'm sure that's a big problem.

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Birth+tourism+rise+Vancouver+Richmond/10713600/story.html

Let's just say I've also 'heard' how easy it is to do and how many are wanting to do it and leave it at that when it comes to numbers. Right now, it's a small aspect. But the challenge is in the fact it's a growing problem, unless you curb it, it only continues to grow and then becomes a tough industry to stop, especially at the home country where it becomes a viable business.

Canada doesn't have it so bad. Most Americans would rather give birth in the US, and we have no large land border with Mexico or another country where it's easy to cross and enter.

But it's not really such a shake up to our values or constitution. Most European countries are far more tolerant and accepting than us, and they still don't allow birthright citizenship unless one or more parents are citizens at the time of birth. It's very easy to curb this, but the political will must be there too. Obviously you'd take into account permanent residents and foreign nationals working and residing in the country. But how people, just visiting the country, giving birth and then getting forever citizenship and the benefits to go along with it, should be allowed or condoned, I don't know.

Unlike other people, these people have no intention of staying or living or contributing to the country either. Many leave and go back and then use the citizenship when it's convenient (ie. Purchasing real estate, needing consular or embassy services, emergency medical help).

232 a year is very low. That's not even birth tourism, your article simply says they're born to non-citizens. That could be a legal permanent resident that got pregnant and gave birth.

A lot of Europe is xenophobia central (compared to Canada) with far-right anti-immigration parties regularly getting 15-40% of the vote if not outright forming government. Not that all of Europe is xenophobic, but there is nothing about European countries' immigration policy I'd want to emulate.

 

[Erin S Kittens]

You can do better than this.

As for the topic at hand - America will eventually need address immigration as a whole; things like this shouldn't be happening.

I think worse than the method being used in order to gain citizenship are the people cashing in on it by running maternity hotels. It's getting a little out of hand here in California.

I thought I'd match the level of effort in what I was responding to.

 

[Big-E]

The problem lies in the visa application. If they are letting Chinese people come into Canada to give birth I am downright furious. My wife was denied a visa to Canada for the reasons that we were too poor and we had no reason to go to Canada despite the fact that I am Canadian and wanted her to meet my family. I had to go the permanent resident route just so my wife could fucking visit Canada. If they are letting rich Chinese into the country for births then the consulates in China need to be investigated. Currently there is no oversight. You get denied there is nothing you can do as you can not talk to anyone about visas or immigration.

 

[Mammoth Jones]

I do not support open borders for the US and I do not believe citizenship here is something every person on earth is entitled to.

Sadly there are people that are willing to game the system and exploit our laws to their benefit.

While I may not be willing to mess with birthright citizenship I'd have no problem kicking parents that's don't have citizenship and do this out of the county regardless of their child's status.

Basically disincentivize the loophole that would allow parents of born citizens that aren't citizens themselves to stay in the US when they game the system. This shouldn't apply to people here legally with visas or green cards.

 

[poppabk]

A large chunk of the $50K that lady spent was injected directly into the American economy. It's also very likely her kid will receive top-tier education in and outside of China and if he/she ever goes back to America he/she will certainly contribute to the economy and society. How's that a bad thing?

Or the kid moves to a lenient state for a year, established in state residency and gets to go to college for $20k a year less than they would otherwise pay. Then they go home.

 

[TheJLC]

Yes, it is how it was meant to be.

However, the parents if they lied in the documents to obtain a visa or enter the US should face a penalty.