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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

How many times has that ever happened? I have no problem with expensive rescues of dumb Americans on boats ( http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/navy-rescues-american-family-stranded-at-sea-with-sick-baby/article_6dc361f6-bdf1-11e3-82fb-001a4bcf6878.html ). I've never heard of expensive rescues of Americans who've never set foot, aside from birth, in the US. Have you?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

And 40K in hospital bills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What??!!! No, most US citizens don't even get extracted by Marines unless they are part of the US Mission. Jaysus. Where do people come up with this sh*t?

[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.

Yep. Liberal thinking never fails to astound.
Get rid of birthright citizenship. #voteTrump

[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.

No doubt your points are valid but you obviously don't know how it works in the real world.

[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.

The IRS will chase them down? Who knows if they will spend many years without a social sec number? Is citizenship taken away for taxes?

[Anonymous]

My parents did that. I'm Canadian and American. People always blame the illegal Mexicans, we just skip through the cracks

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

What??!!! No, most US citizens don't even get extracted by Marines unless they are part of the US Mission. Jaysus. Where do people come up with this sh*t?

As someone who grew up as part of "US Missions". Non diplomatic travelers and Americans abroad register with the Embassy and yes, as the military support branch to these "US Missions", are evacuated and protected by Marines and sometimes other American special forces. This not only includes members of Missions, but also missionaries and any other US citizens who get swept up by events. Left the country much? Next time, check in with your local consulate as advised.

http://www.15thmeu.marines.mil/News/News-Article-Display/Article/545402/marines-train-to-evacuate-us-citizens-abroad/

[Anonymous]

It is a government subsidy to rich chinese. Another of the hundreds of subsidies to large corporations and immigrants on the backs of low skilled workers.

And the idea came to me that instead of talking about an H-1B program that lets in 65,000 high-tech workers (workers that most people attending those hearings have little in common with), we should instead think about an A-1B program that lets in 65,000 attorneys. These attorneys would have passed some sort of certification exam prepared by the American Bar Association. The test could be very, very hard, but I bet that Kaplan-like test centers would magically spring up all over the world to teach the requisite skills to would-be lawyers and that many potential lawyers would quickly join the queue.

What do you think would happen to the labor market for attorneys in the US? One doesn’t need professional training in economics to realize that attorneys would face an even harder time getting jobs. And that law firms and potential consumers would benefit because we could all hire legal services at much cheaper rates. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to hire a tax attorney to do our taxes next month at cut-rate prices?

As I was flying back to Boston, it occurred to me that this is not such a crazy proposal after all. In fact, why not attach the proposal to create an A-1B program every time someone introduces legislation to increase the H-1B cap? I would love to hear the reactions from the usual suspects–e.g., the American Immigration Lawyers Association–to the A-1B program. Would it shock anyone if this was the first “more immigrants, please” proposal that they would reject outright? Maybe then we could have a real debate about the costs and benefits of the H-1B program.

https://gborjas.org/page/2/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is a government subsidy to rich chinese. Another of the hundreds of subsidies to large corporations and immigrants on the backs of low skilled workers.

And the idea came to me that instead of talking about an H-1B program that lets in 65,000 high-tech workers (workers that most people attending those hearings have little in common with), we should instead think about an A-1B program that lets in 65,000 attorneys. These attorneys would have passed some sort of certification exam prepared by the American Bar Association. The test could be very, very hard, but I bet that Kaplan-like test centers would magically spring up all over the world to teach the requisite skills to would-be lawyers and that many potential lawyers would quickly join the queue.

What do you think would happen to the labor market for attorneys in the US? One doesn’t need professional training in economics to realize that attorneys would face an even harder time getting jobs. And that law firms and potential consumers would benefit because we could all hire legal services at much cheaper rates. Wouldn’t it be nice to be able to hire a tax attorney to do our taxes next month at cut-rate prices?

As I was flying back to Boston, it occurred to me that this is not such a crazy proposal after all. In fact, why not attach the proposal to create an A-1B program every time someone introduces legislation to increase the H-1B cap? I would love to hear the reactions from the usual suspects–e.g., the American Immigration Lawyers Association–to the A-1B program. Would it shock anyone if this was the first “more immigrants, please” proposal that they would reject outright? Maybe then we could have a real debate about the costs and benefits of the H-1B program.

https://gborjas.org/page/2/

Perhaps you should try working your brain cells instead of your fingers that are obviously very skilled in the copy/paste department. The H1B program is not a gateway for tech workers - it does not require that the job be in any particular area, only that the job requires a college degree. I've used it for six years and I'm in PR, for crying out loud.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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."

Get your facts straight. You need to spend some time on the U.S.--Mexican border to realize how out of touch you are with the reality of La Frontera life Yes, there is such a thing. Yes, the parents are here illegally. Yes, the children receive public aid, and whole families subsist on it.

BTW, pregnant women are eligible for MedicAid, so few, very few actually pay for the services rendered.

[Anonymous]

I think birthright citizenship is an amazing thing and one of the best things about this country. I am proud that we offer it. I don't really care if people fly here to take advantage of it. If they plan to stay and become productive citizens, fine by me. If they leave but eventually their US citizen child comes back and becomes a productive citizen, also fine. If their child never comes back, it's no real skin off my back; plus they're supposed to pay taxes as adults unless they renounce their citizenship, so in theory there could also be economic benefits in the future.

If you want people to assimilate and become American -- whatever that means, it probably means different things to different people -- birthright citizenship is the best way to accomplish it. Denying citizenship to children born and raised here is a perfect way to create a resentful, violent, and permanent underclass.

Like another poster said, I never hear anyone complaining about Canadian/British/Australian/other white European immigration or white European "anchor babies." Only South Americans and Asians. I see no reason why those groups cannot become as American as anyone else. And birthright citizenship is the major way to achieve that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My parents did that. I'm Canadian and American. People always blame the illegal Mexicans, we just skip through the cracks

It's actually part of our Grand Plan to annex Canada through birth assimilation over time.

[Anonymous]

I wonder why my post about MedicAid eligibility was trashed. Is this fact too inconvenient or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My parents did that. I'm Canadian and American. People always blame the illegal Mexicans, we just skip through the cracks

It's actually part of our Grand Plan to annex Canada through birth assimilation over time.

[b]

Sounds good. America will be a much nicer place with more Canadians.