Birth Tourism in the United Staes

Linkage.

What are your views on this? I know people who were born in similar circumstances, but not in the United states. I personally would not do so unless the father of my child was an American citizen himself...

Good lord, that used to be a method of extremely popular Loophole Abuse used by South Koreans to make their children double-nationalitied so they would be exempt from mandatory draft. Doesn't work anymore, hahaha.

I support freedom of movement, so Rules Lawyering against immigration restrictions is fair game on my book.

Well... um...

Hm.

I have no strong opinion on this. Go figure. Oh well.

Might I ask how this is functionally any different than anchor babies? It doesn't seem to be.

It's not (if you're talking about what I think you are), but it's wholly constitutional, in the sense that our immigration laws are apparently tethered to the Fourteenth Amendment, which is a hugely important one that would be a bitch to change.

I guess we could not issue green cards to pregnant women, but I'm partial to free immigration, so I don't like that idea...

I never really understood American anti-immigrationism. I mean, aren't you all decended from immmigrants? I have family that moved to America back in the ealry 20th century.

In the end, this "birth tourism" is a small part of the overall population growth in the US, and small friens compared to the expposive immmigration of the westward expansion and industrial revolution. Remember when all those Paddies and Micks and Poles and Macaronis were the problem?

Well, basically, it's a good deal of nationalism mixed with a(n un)healthy dose of racism, and, somewhere down the line, religious prejudice.

~shrug~

Hm. I completely understand why people would do this. But I also completely understand why other people would be annoyed at this practise. And I can't really state an opinion.

edited 30th Oct '11 9:31:29 AM by ArlaGrey

@Jethro: What's the difference between a paddy and a mick, ain't them both Irish?

Only if you're not one of the Native tribes, Jethro. Plus, this pattern isn't exactly new; there were once heavy restrictions against Irish immigrants and Eastern Europeans. They usually found their way in, anyway. What can I say, people are racist. In America we've gotten creative with the language we use.

Anyhow, I'm surprised that anyone would do this to get their children into our education system. It's kind of crappy right now. Also, I kind of thought that the "citizenship" thing only applied if you were residing here and intended it to be permanent. *shrug* But whatever, if it's currently legal I don't think there's anything to be done about it. And these women are coming here to spend their money, so I can only conclude that's a positive for our economy. Course, I also think the fear of immigrants is ridiculous.

Anyone born on US soil or to a US citizen is automatically a US citizen.

That simple? Hm. Weird.

But anyway, again, good for our economy if they come here and spend their money while they're taking care of their babies. And more money if they send their children to private schools. And give their kids allowances to spend.

It's messed up and has to be abusing some loophole. I'm of the mind of changing the law so that your only a citizen if your parents are here legally, either citizens or legal residents. I don't like that people use children as anchors.

Why? Is not being born on the soil of this country enough to qualify you as a part of it?

What should happen is, if the kid grows up to be eighteen and his parents still haven't become legal citizens, their free ride is over. That, or if they don't regularly renew their papers like they're supposed to. Having a US citizen as a kid should give you the right to stay, but you have to go through the legal motions of it like everyone else.

Yeah, but they're not using the babies to become US citizens themselves. They're using this fact in order to provide their children with an American education, which they apparently view as far less stressful and thus superior in that way to the Chinese schools. Basically, it's all for the children and not actually themselves.

Well, fine, but when the child is an adult there's no reason for them to stay unless they A) consistently renew their paperwork or B) become a citizen, too.

I don't really grasp why you'd want to be a non-citizen permanent legal resident in the US. Can't we tax you, and yet you can't vote? That sounds ludicrously stupid...

I'm not sure how it works, but it's basically expatriatism? I think a lot of Americans were expats over in Europe after WW 2.

But just because they get an education here doesn't mean they stay here. And from what I can tell, they mean to send the kid to primary education like highschool at private schools, and anything after that is mostly the kid's choice. Though I do admit it's probably easier to get into a college here when you've gone to high school here. The plan is to send them when they're young, not when they're college age.

Eh, if they're willing to keep the paperwork up to date, I don't care.

~shrug~

You're right, though, the US isn't exactly the greatest place to go for an education. I guess that "American Dream" meme is still alive and well outside of Western Europe...

I'm more of the mindset of the babies can stay but boot the parents out if they aren't here legally. Anyone born on US soil is a US citizen and deserves the full rights and protections of the US Constitution and its laws. Everyone else does not if they aren't here legally. (Assuming not a naturalized citizen/jus soli/jus sanguinis citizenship.)

Well, like I said, the ladies doing this apparently consider the American system less stressful, less focused on such intense competition. (Which, considering what I know of Japanese education, is probably a valid complement.) Which they view as desirable for their children. Plus, private schools here are pretty good. I think, comparatively, there's less stigma for failure here, even before our classes got neutered. We're encouraged to try again, or do something else, rather than feel shame. (Again, comparatively.)

Higher learning rates and test scores versus better psychological effects. We just can't win, can we?

However, Tom, that seems hardly fair. It's cheaper for the taxpayers to grant the parents permanent visas and let them raise the kid than it is to put them through the foster system. Better for the kid, too, of course.

Letting the parents stay just encourages more illegal immigration via anchor babies. It's a negative feedback loop.

We don't have the resources to allow anyone in as they please.

The problem with permanent visas in this situation is that the mothers intend to go back home. It's... a very strange thing that's happening here, in that they apparently intend the citizenship to apply only to their children. (Plus it states that these women are apparently successful business women, many of whom travel quite a bit. So we can assume that they have all the legal documentation that they require when they come over here.)