Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is the wording of the Constitution.

What matters is the interpretation of the wording of the Constitution. Clearly, there was never any intent to extend citizenship to the children of tourists who give birth here and then leave. What other country does that? Answer: Only Canada to some extent. The right to exclude foreigners is a right every nation in the world enjoys based on state sovereignty. It's time we started enforcing it like the rest of the world.

Actually, just about all of the Americas, North and South. Not just us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

Nice try, but wrong. Only US and Canada have automatic birthright citizenship. 31 others make it possible via application. The other 160+ nations outlaw it altogether.

This is also incorrect information. The children of canadians are canadian citizens, pure and simple.

An OP pointed issues at her school - Canada actually saw this problem and a few years ago began restricting who could claim Canadian citizenship. They realized that they had people (esp in Hong Kong) who held Canadian citizenship through their parents or grandparents and none had lived in Canada for years or ever or had any real connection to the place. I think Americans have to ask if this is what they want US citizenship to become - an insurance policy and a backup or even a status symbol like an LV bag for rich people around the world.

Anonymous wrote:Yes, it is disgusting. There are agencies in China where they will set this up for you. They will book the hotels, the hospitals and flights and also coach you on how to respond to the immigration officers' questions. Many will also point out that US hospitals (esp in California) won't make you pay so you can give birth and then skip out on the bill. The Chinese mindset is that if the hospital doesn't force them to pay then the hospital is the fool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is the wording of the Constitution.

What matters is the interpretation of the wording of the Constitution. Clearly, there was never any intent to extend citizenship to the children of tourists who give birth here and then leave. What other country does that? Answer: Only Canada to some extent. The right to exclude foreigners is a right every nation in the world enjoys based on state sovereignty. It's time we started enforcing it like the rest of the world.

Actually, just about all of the Americas, North and South. Not just us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

Nice try, but wrong. Only US and Canada have automatic birthright citizenship. 31 others make it possible via application. The other 160+ nations outlaw it altogether.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is the wording of the Constitution.

What matters is the interpretation of the wording of the Constitution. Clearly, there was never any intent to extend citizenship to the children of tourists who give birth here and then leave. What other country does that? Answer: Only Canada to some extent. The right to exclude foreigners is a right every nation in the world enjoys based on state sovereignty. It's time we started enforcing it like the rest of the world.

Actually, just about all of the Americas, North and South. Not just us.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread is clear indication of how liberal elites that post here are out of touch with the rest of the country

No one can argue with people that don't care about the negative impacts to low skilled labor

this is why democrats lost the presidency. He house and the senate and why democrats are lead by pelosi from San Fran and shumer from new york

If I had a dollar for every reason that was "the reason" Democrats lost the election I'd be living in Trump Tower trolling Twitter. I assure you, the fact that some Democrats don't care about Chinese babies being born in the US is not even in the top 100 reasons that the Democrats lost.

Why is it that you are only concerned about birth tourism involving Chinese? Surely you are aware that nationals of many other countries do it as well?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is the wording of the Constitution.

What matters is the interpretation of the wording of the Constitution. Clearly, there was never any intent to extend citizenship to the children of tourists who give birth here and then leave. What other country does that? Answer: Only Canada to some extent. The right to exclude foreigners is a right every nation in the world enjoys based on state sovereignty. It's time we started enforcing it like the rest of the world.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We live overseas and at the American school my kids attend there are a surprising number of kids who have American passports because their mothers flew to the US to give birth. They have never lived in the US but they have the golden passport. Our school gives preferential admissions to holders of American and Canadian passports so there are also a number of kids with Canadian passports because their parents immigrated to Canada just long enough to get the passport and then moved back overseas so most of the kids also never lived in Canada. Our good Canadian friends like to joke there are more Lebanese, Indian and Pakistani holders of Canadian passports abroad than actual Canadians.

I am bemused. I understand people taking advantage of the system to better position themselves and their families as it gives them more security. But I do agree that some reforms are necessary. Citizenship or permanent residency should be granted to people who have a long term commitment to their new country. Birth tourism should be eliminated. Only babies born to those with a valid residency / work visa should be allowed to obtain the citizenship. Or even require a duration of something like at least five years' residency in the US before being able to obtain citizenship for the baby. Or if you are born in the US you get the right to qualify for the citizenship but you need to come back and live in the US for at least five years before getting the passport.

How does this harm the US? It may or may not be a good thing for your school. Beyond that, what's the harm?

Anonymous wrote:It doesn't matter what I believe. What matters is the wording of the Constitution.

Anonymous wrote:We live overseas and at the American school my kids attend there are a surprising number of kids who have American passports because their mothers flew to the US to give birth. They have never lived in the US but they have the golden passport. Our school gives preferential admissions to holders of American and Canadian passports so there are also a number of kids with Canadian passports because their parents immigrated to Canada just long enough to get the passport and then moved back overseas so most of the kids also never lived in Canada. Our good Canadian friends like to joke there are more Lebanese, Indian and Pakistani holders of Canadian passports abroad than actual Canadians.

I am bemused. I understand people taking advantage of the system to better position themselves and their families as it gives them more security. But I do agree that some reforms are necessary. Citizenship or permanent residency should be granted to people who have a long term commitment to their new country. Birth tourism should be eliminated. Only babies born to those with a valid residency / work visa should be allowed to obtain the citizenship. Or even require a duration of something like at least five years' residency in the US before being able to obtain citizenship for the baby. Or if you are born in the US you get the right to qualify for the citizenship but you need to come back and live in the US for at least five years before getting the passport.