Feds crack down on 'birth hotels'

[MillCreek]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/03/feds-crack-down-on-chinese-birth-tourism-scam/

I liked the part about after paying $ 40-80K, the birth tourists go to the local hospital in California, claim indigence, and stick the taxpayers with the medical bills.

[Firethorn]

Just keep in mind that it's not the kid's fault.   

Easiest fix for this stuff?  Remind the kids that they have to pay US taxes....  Even if they're not in the USA.

[vaskidmark]

With twins do we get egg rolls?

I'm not for changing the rules about how citizenship is obtained.  I am for changing how/when/why folks are allowed inside our borders and what we do if they are discovered to have violated the rules.

I'm trying to work out "anchor babies be damned".

stay safe.

[RevDisk]

*shrug*

While it likely happened before we took such a lax attitude on illegal immigration, it's more than a bit obvious that you'd get more of fraud like this with said lax attitude. Easy enough solution. Kid has citizenship, parents and other family do not.

[brimic]

One rule of economics is that you get a surplus of what you subsidize.

[MechAg94]

If neither birth parent is a US Citizen, why should the kid automatically be a US Citizen?  Certainly if neither birth parent even lives here.

[birdman]

If neither birth parent is a US Citizen, why should the kid automatically be a US Citizen?  Certainly if neither birth parent even lives here.

This.

It should be parental citizenship.  If AND ONLY IF one or both parents are citizens, you are automatically a citizen, regardless of birth location...
In other words, right now, its:
If parent is citizen (regardless of location) OR born here, and I want to just nix the second half.

[vaskidmark]

If neither birth parent is a US Citizen, why should the kid automatically be a US Citizen?  Certainly if neither birth parent even lives here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Citizenship_and_civil_rights

Section 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Background
Section 1 of the amendment formally defines United States citizenship and also protects various civil rights from being abridged or denied by any state or state actor. Abridgment or denial of those civil rights by private persons is not addressed by this amendment; the Supreme Court held in the Civil Rights Cases (1883)[26] that the amendment was limited to "state action" and, therefore, did not authorize the Congress to outlaw racial discrimination by private individuals or organizations (though Congress can sometimes reach such discrimination via other parts of the Constitution). U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley commented in the Civil Rights Cases that "individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject-matter of the [14th] Amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and makes void all state legislation, and state action of every kind, which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, or which injures them in life, liberty or property without due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal protection of the laws."[27]
The Radical Republicans who advanced the Thirteenth Amendment hoped to ensure broad civil and human rights for the newly freed people—but its scope was disputed before it even went into effect.[28] The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted these principles enshrined in the Constitution to protect the new Civil Rights Act from being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and also to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote.[29][30] This section was also in response to violence against black people within the Southern states. The Joint Committee on Reconstruction found that only a Constitutional amendment could protect black people's rights and welfare within those states.[31]
This first section of the amendment has been the most frequently litigated part of the amendment,[32] and this amendment in turn has been the most frequently litigated part of the Constitution.[33]

Citizenship Clause

The Citizenship Clause overruled the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision that black people were not citizens and could not become citizens, nor enjoy the benefits of citizenship.[34][35] Some members of Congress voted for the Fourteenth Amendment in order to eliminate doubts about the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1866,[36] or to ensure that no subsequent Congress could later repeal or alter the main provisions of that Act.[37] The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States if they were not subject to a foreign power, and this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constitutionalized this rule.

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress and of the ratifying states, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment, as well as the customs and understandings prevalent at that time.[38][39] Some of the major issues that have arisen about this clause are the extent to which it included Native Americans, its coverage of non-citizens legally present in the United States when they have a child, whether the clause allows revocation of citizenship, and whether the clause applies to illegal immigrants.

Don't they teach civics any more?   

stay safe.

[RevDisk]

This.

It should be parental citizenship.  If AND ONLY IF one or both parents are citizens, you are automatically a citizen, regardless of birth location...
In other words, right now, its:
If parent is citizen (regardless of location) OR born here, and I want to just nix the second half.

As Skidmark pointed out, it'd require a constitutional amendment. There's no way to end run the 14th amendment, nor should there be.

I concur, but it's fairly unlikely at this point. We can't even get illegals deported, so a Constitutional amendment is a bit of stretch.

[makattak]

Hypocrites.

Apparently the Obama administration hates Asians. That can be the only explanation for cracking down on Asian anchor babies while encouraging and supporting Hispanic ones.

[MechAg94]

Hypocrites.

Apparently the Obama administration hates Asians. That can be the only explanation for cracking down on Asian anchor babies while encouraging and supporting Hispanic ones.

Just wait and see if one of them figures out they can sue on racial grounds.

[birdman]

As Skidmark pointed out, it'd require a constitutional amendment. There's no way to end run the 14th amendment, nor should there be.

I concur, but it's fairly unlikely at this point. We can't even get illegals deported, so a Constitutional amendment is a bit of stretch.

Except there was and still is debate over the "and subject to the jurisdiction" part...but oh well.  Yeah, you are mainly right, but perhaps once the C-P strategy works its way into the light, we can make changes.

[roo_ster]

As Skidmark pointed out, it'd require a constitutional amendment. There's no way to end run the 14th amendment, nor should there be.

I concur, but it's fairly unlikely at this point. We can't even get illegals deported, so a Constitutional amendment is a bit of stretch.

Meh, just an act of Congress. 
1. There are specific provisions/laws enacted by Congress exempting certain folk from getting birth citizenship already. 
2. It was to ensure that former slaves had citizenship in both the individual states in which they reside and the USA. 

[vaskidmark]

2. It was to ensure that former slaves had citizenship in both the individual states in which they reside and the USA. 

What it was intended to do and what SCOTUS said it did/does are vastly different.  And SCOTUS holds the trump card as Congress is/will be very reluctant to rewrite.

Have you ever looked at the process of attaining citizenship in other countries?

In response to the whole anchor baby situation - I keep coming back to Swift's "A Modest Proposal" but this time in reverse.  Leave the kids alone and focus on the parents/siblings.  Hold them for 30 days to check for transmissable disease organisms not rendered inert by processing.  Texturized non-vegetable protien product.

stay safe.

[Firethorn]

Eh, just had a nasty thought.  We know that if they're spending up to $80k to get their kid citizenship they're not indigent.

If they give birth at a US hospital, keep custody of the kid until they demonstrate their ability to care for it - by paying their hospital bill.

[MillCreek]

Eh, just had a nasty thought.  We know that if they're spending up to $80k to get their kid citizenship they're not indigent.

If they give birth at a US hospital, keep custody of the kid until they demonstrate their ability to care for it - by paying their hospital bill.

I like this idea.

[Hawkmoon]

I'm trying to work out "anchor babies be damned".

I'm not. Send the parents back to wherever the parents came from, and send the anchor babies with them. Revoke their American citizenship. If we start doing it, the problem will take care of itself within a few years because people won't try to sneak in, expecting that their little "anchor baby" will allow the whole family to stay here.

After all, remember that Cuban kid in Miami. After a tremendous hue and cry, the D.O.J. decided that families should stay together, kids should be with their parents. Since the mother died en route, we sent the kid back to Cuba to live with his father. I see nothing different here. Kids belong with their parents. If the parents belong in Guatemala, so do the kids.

[Hawkmoon]

Don't they teach civics any more?   

Generally, no. In this case, what are they going to teach? That the courts don't really know what the Constitution says on the issue?

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress and of the ratifying states, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment, as well as the customs and understandings prevalent at that time.[38][39] Some of the major issues that have arisen about this clause are the extent to which it included Native Americans, its coverage of non-citizens legally present in the United States when they have a child, whether the clause allows revocation of citizenship, and whether the clause applies to illegal immigrants.

[vaskidmark]

I'm not. Send the parents back to wherever the parents came from, and send the anchor babies with them. Revoke their American citizenship. If we start doing it, the problem will take care of itself within a few years because people won't try to sneak in, expecting that their little "anchor baby" will allow the whole family to stay here.

After all, remember that Cuban kid in Miami. After a tremendous hue and cry, the D.O.J. decided that families should stay together, kids should be with their parents. Since the mother died en route, we sent the kid back to Cuba to live with his father. I see nothing different here. Kids belong with their parents. If the parents belong in Guatemala, so do the kids.

I was approaching it more from the position that anchor babies are in fact citizens and you need to follow due process to make them stateless.  As for their families - the law allows citizens to sponsor the immigration of family member provided the citizen can prove the capacity to financially support those immigrants.  Pretty much a big "Nope!" for newborns.

Now follow along, kiddies.

There are all sorts of folks out there that are looking to adopt newborns and have no qualms about adopting one of the "right minority" infants.  And some of them are stupid enough to believe that Asian kids come already above-smart to genius level.*  (And by the time they find out otherwise the warranty has expired. )

No matter how or why the kid came to be born in America they are, at least under current ROE, American citizens.  Their parents, siblings, near- and far-relations are not.  If those foreign non-citizen parents don't want to give them up for adoption then set up some legally-here family member/friend/happens to be from the same country as the legal guardian of the kid and then work through the process to immigrate.  Heck, milk the "hardship" clauses of being separated from your kid all you can.

stay safe.

* - OTOH, as has been pointed out being able to pay $80K+ to get here to drop a kid is some indication of not being destitute.  And since Asian kids are above-smart to genius right out of the box it might be a worthwhile endeavor to get more Asian kids to offset the take-jobs-Americans-won't-do type.  I'm throwing that out there because nobody seems to want to pick up and run with my reverse-"A Modest Proposal" proposal.

[wmenorr67]

Why are we the only country on this earth to automatically grant citizenship to a child born within our borders?

[Hawkmoon]

I was approaching it more from the position that anchor babies are in fact citizens and you need to follow due process to make them stateless.  As for their families - the law allows citizens to sponsor the immigration of family member provided the citizen can prove the capacity to financially support those immigrants.  Pretty much a big "Nope!" for newborns.

I understood your position. I was just saying that we should make them (the anchor babies) stateless, or at least adopt a position that the parents can't stay here, so the child (even though an American citizen) belongs with the parents, ergo the whole fan-damily goes back to wherever they came from.

The kid can come back when he/she is emancipated and can show the means to support him/herself. Ih he/she then wishes to bring over the parental units, he/she must also demonstrate that he/she can support them.

[birdman]

Why are we the only country on this earth to automatically grant citizenship to a child born within our borders?

Because it was reasonable when it was your tired, poor, yearning to be free...but be prepared to work your ass off.

[De Selby]

Why are we the only country on this earth to automatically grant citizenship to a child born within our borders?

Because clever slave owners came up with really good legal arguments as to why black people couldn't be citizens.  Dred Scott to the 14th amendment is a straight line - in short, efforts to defend slavery and deprive an entire race of legal protections resulted in this rule.

The 14th amendment put the squabbling to bed with a hammer.  The only tests are: 1) are you born in the US?  and 2) are your parents somehow beyond the reach of US law, i.e., by being diplomats?

If yes to one and no to two, citizen.  The rule has never been seriously questioned in any court decision since the Supreme Court first weighed in on the matter.

This is an example of what happens in a balance-of-power government when competing executives and legislatures try to get clever with each other.  Blatant attempts to resist laws against slavery resulted in the 14th amendment.  There's a whole body of judge made law from the 50's and 60's that followed similar attempts to preserve institutional racism.

In a great twist of irony the intellectual ancestors of modern racists are responsible for the US having this rule.

[De Selby]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/03/03/feds-crack-down-on-chinese-birth-tourism-scam/

I liked the part about after paying $ 40-80K, the birth tourists go to the local hospital in California, claim indigence, and stick the taxpayers with the medical bills.

There's an obvious market solution to be had here - what about charging them $20,000, and taking 30% of the kid's income for life? If the feds agree to split the tax revenue with the hospitals it might be profitable.

[vaskidmark]

Screw waiting around for the kid to begin getting an iincome.

Throw the parents out as illegal aliens.  Declare the kid an abandoned child and put it in foster care on the fast track to terminating residual parental rights of the absent parents.  Charge outrageous fees that will recoup the costs for the child-placing agency services of getting the child adopted.  (No, that is not slavery by another name.)  Adoptive parents have a new kid they are financially responsible for.

Welfare eliminated.  Problem solved.  Seem to have heard it somewhere before.

stay safe.