What do you think of the practice of flying in to the US to . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very, very common in major city hospitals.

I'm a hard left liberal and I think it's an egregious loophole. That said, when they come here via airplanes and pay cash for their birth (plus a few months of recovery time), they are the type of immigrants we actually want to attract to the US - upper middle class, entrepreneurial, etc. Also, their kids will need to pay U.S. taxes on their global earnings if they wish to continue holding their citizenship. Even if they've never lived in the U.S. for one day. U.S. citizenship is NOT free.

Careful, people are now going to tell you that it's discriminatory and elitist for a country to select the kind of immigrants it wants, and that immigration should be a human right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should amend the Constitution so that this is no longer an option.
Illegal immigration would be reduced significantly if we did.


plus 1,000

What other countries do this? Automatic citizenship even though the parents aren't citizens? Perhaps they could give birth here but, then their children are not citizens and they have to pay the hospital bill.

It has got to stop.

Well, all of the Western Hemisphere. And up until recent decades, the UK, France, and the other Commonwealth Nations.

Not true. I don't have German citizenship even though I was born there in a German hospital. They didn't give it to me at all. If one of my parents was German, then perhaps, but since they weren't...auf wiedersehen Ami.

Germany used to, but changed their citizenship rules, as PP said.

Germany is not the UK, France, or a Commonwealth Nation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very, very common in major city hospitals.

I'm a hard left liberal and I think it's an egregious loophole. That said, when they come here via airplanes and pay cash for their birth (plus a few months of recovery time), they are the type of immigrants we actually want to attract to the US - upper middle class, entrepreneurial, etc. Also, their kids will need to pay U.S. taxes on their global earnings if they wish to continue holding their citizenship. Even if they've never lived in the U.S. for one day. U.S. citizenship is NOT free.

It's not a loophole. A loophole is an unintended consequence. This is a deliberate choice that was made in order to ensure that former slaves had US citizenship.

[Anonymous]

I am against it and always have been. Children born to legal immigrants is acceptable even if they don't become American citizens.

But the issues that come from the so called 'anchor babies' cannot be solved under the current law unless an interpretation of the 14th amendment "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." is done. My belief is that it does not address illegal immigrants and that the amendment went more to the issue of naturalizing former slaves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should amend the Constitution so that this is no longer an option.
Illegal immigration would be reduced significantly if we did.


plus 1,000

What other countries do this? Automatic citizenship even though the parents aren't citizens? Perhaps they could give birth here but, then their children are not citizens and they have to pay the hospital bill.

It has got to stop.

Well, all of the Western Hemisphere. And up until recent decades, the UK, France, and the other Commonwealth Nations.

Not true. I don't have German citizenship even though I was born there in a German hospital. They didn't give it to me at all. If one of my parents was German, then perhaps, but since they weren't...auf wiedersehen Ami.

Germany used to, but changed their citizenship rules, as PP said.

Germany is not the UK, France, or a Commonwealth Nation.

My mistake, not Germany.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:give birth so you can have a US citizen child and then returning to your home country?

What do you think of dumb immigration laws in general, OP? We're suckers, and the rest of the world would be stupid not to take advantage of our utter idiocy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very, very common in major city hospitals.

I'm a hard left liberal and I think it's an egregious loophole. That said, when they come here via airplanes and pay cash for their birth (plus a few months of recovery time), they are the type of immigrants we actually want to attract to the US - upper middle class, entrepreneurial, etc. Also, their kids will need to pay U.S. taxes on their global earnings if they wish to continue holding their citizenship. Even if they've never lived in the U.S. for one day. U.S. citizenship is NOT free.

It's not a loophole. A loophole is an unintended consequence. This is a deliberate choice that was made in order to ensure that former slaves had US citizenship.

Correction: it was a deliberate choice. Now that the slavery has been abolished, it's a loophole--an unintended consequence of something that used to make sense a long time ago but doesn't any more.

Many countries do have jus soli, many don't. It's a choice a sovereign nation is free to make.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We should amend the Constitution so that this is no longer an option.
Illegal immigration would be reduced significantly if we did.

+1001. This was obviously not something our forefathers thought of when drafting the Constitution. Travel was slow and arduous back then and once you were here, you were likely to stay. As much as I dislike Trump, I am considering voting for him for immigration. Our policies have to change.

Do you feel this way about the Second Amendment as well?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am against it and always have been. Children born to legal immigrants is acceptable even if they don't become American citizens.

But the issues that come from the so called 'anchor babies' cannot be solved under the current law unless an interpretation of the 14th amendment "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." is done. My belief is that it does not address illegal immigrants and that the amendment went more to the issue of naturalizing former slaves.

One could interpret that anchor babies don't actually "reside" in the State into which they are born, considering that their mothers are on a tourist visa. The mother has not established residency.

I'd be open to changing the 14th Amendment to make this clearer.

This is just another instance in which the Constitution and Bill of Rights are an outdated mess.

-Hard left liberal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you pay your hospital bill, great. Thanks for coming and maybe we'll see your child in 10 or 20 years.

Lots of wealthy people from China. They come a few months before the birth and they pay all of their bills in cash. I'd do it, too, if I had the money and lived in a totalitarian country like China.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am against it and always have been. Children born to legal immigrants is acceptable even if they don't become American citizens.

But the issues that come from the so called 'anchor babies' cannot be solved under the current law unless an interpretation of the 14th amendment "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." is done. My belief is that it does not address illegal immigrants and that the amendment went more to the issue of naturalizing former slaves.

Anchor babies are a myth. You can't use a US citizen child as a defense in an immigration deportation proceeding. This week, SCOTUS told Obama that he couldn't delay deportation proceedings for parents of US born children. It doesn't work.

This gives the child a US passport, but does nothing for the child's parents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am against it and always have been. Children born to legal immigrants is acceptable even if they don't become American citizens.

But the issues that come from the so called 'anchor babies' cannot be solved under the current law unless an interpretation of the 14th amendment "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." is done. My belief is that it does not address illegal immigrants and that the amendment went more to the issue of naturalizing former slaves.

Anchor babies are a myth. You can't use a US citizen child as a defense in an immigration deportation proceeding. This week, SCOTUS told Obama that he couldn't delay deportation proceedings for parents of US born children. It doesn't work.

This gives the child a US passport, but does nothing for the child's parents.

Adding, a US born child can't even apply for a green card for his/her parents until the child is 21.

There is no such thing as an "anchor baby."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

There is a distinct human attachment to the piece of land that someone is born on. It's irrational but our human mind is wired this way. I can never be president no matter how much of a patriot I am.

Um, no. My son was born in another country and he has no attachment to it. Doesn't even want to visit. He's an adult now so I don't think he will change his mind. His "human mind" is not wired in the way yours appears to be wired.

What, you think your anecdote invalidates many millenniums of human experience?

Very simple exercise, think of something your son's birth place is good at competitively, whether it's some type of sport, trade, or some export. Place before him a choice to choose either his birthplace or some other third country he has no particular attachments to. What would he choose and why.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Happens a lot on my maternity floor. Self pay, wealthy, educated. Wil they come back? Who knows

These types are an asset. Charge them more for the birth in order to reduce health costs for others here. No doubt they are on tourist visas. The ones who come in illegally and cannot afford to pay for the birth are an issue.

Also, maybe Americans can take a lesson and fly to other countries to give birth so that they too have dual citizenship (this may happen more if Trump is elected). Maybe some people on DCUM know of countries where this is possible?

Do it. Google "citizenship by birthright countries" and you'll see your choices are very limited. Most countries in the Americas have it and I wonder why. Not. Once again, times have changed, but the Constitution hasn't kept up. the amendments that have been made maybe aren't enough.

Canada has birthright citizenship. You need a passport now to go and come back, though, not just a driver's license.

I just crossed by car with a Drivers License (Government ID) and Birth Certificate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Very, very common in major city hospitals.

I'm a hard left liberal and I think it's an egregious loophole. That said, when they come here via airplanes and pay cash for their birth (plus a few months of recovery time), they are the type of immigrants we actually want to attract to the US - upper middle class, entrepreneurial, etc. Also, their kids will need to pay U.S. taxes on their global earnings if they wish to continue holding their citizenship. Even if they've never lived in the U.S. for one day. U.S. citizenship is NOT free.

Careful, people are now going to tell you that it's discriminatory and elitist for a country to select the kind of immigrants it wants, and that immigration should be a human right.

Us Marines will need to protect / extract these kids( who might not have spent more than the month they were born on US soil) in foreign lands. They can vote at 18. Is citizenship bought so cheap? With an airplane ticket?