How is this any different than women crossing the southern border to have their babies in American hospitals?
Earlier stories reported that these Asian MTB were not impoverished immigrants—they rode the US gravy train.
Their trips here were financed by rich relatives-—the chain migration once the babies were born meant more riches.
They all knew exactly where all the US govt buried treasure freebies were.
They never thought that the Government they designed would ever be taken over by idiots either.But that’s what has happened.
Professional politicians that wouldn’t know a days work if it bit them on the ass.
If any of our legislooters were serious about ‘immigration reform’, they would address the bastardization of the 14th amendment. It was never meant to be ‘squat and drop’ citizenship.
“It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States. Madison
My diabolical plan is this- I intend to go to mexico- denounce my American citizenship, becoem a legal citizen of Mexico, then sneak back across the boarder so that I can have all the beinfitis afforded illegal aliens and denied to legal citizens here in America-
Exit polls showed that Obama increased his share of the Latino vote in 2012 by five percentage points, from 67% in 2008 to 72% in 2012 and the increase among voters of Asian ethnicities was eleven percentage points, from 62% in 2008 to 73% in 2012. Those two increases more than offset slight reductions in white and black support for Obama in 2012 (whites went from 43% to 39% and blacks went from 95% to 93%).
No way the Obama administration will do anything to stem immigration that gives them a political boost with the electorate. Immigrants need gub’mint services.
The last line is a bit ironic, given the content of the story...
“...A draft ordinance targeting the hotels will not be ready until July at the earliest and will probably focus on single-family residential zones, said the report by L.A. County Chief Executive Officer William T Fujioka.”
I would imagine it would matter what kind of asians.
What the matter with the people we elect that they would trade citizenship for almost nothing?
More people would read this if you had the correct headline.
Actually, you have to be crazy to imagine that the Founders, who lived in an era in which it took an arduous and dangerous journey of weeks if not months to reach the United States, ever considered the possibility of “birth tourism.”
The argument is this: Birth tourism is a bad thing. (So far, I think pretty much everyone will agree on that.)
The Founding Fathers did not “intend” birth tourism (I think we can pretty much all agree on that as well.)
THEREFORE (and here’s where it gets tricky)
a) The Founding Fathers could not possibly have intended children born on US soil of non-citizen (immigrant) parents to be natural born citizens, OR
b) Even if they did intend children of non-citizen (immigrant) parents to be natural born citizens, we should today “reinterpret” their words as if they hadn’t, because we don’t like the consequences of that, OR
c) IF they had known that 225 years in the future, we would have jet airplanes and birth tourism, then they WOULD HAVE established a rule that persons born on US soil had to have citizen parents as well in order to be eligible to the Presidency. Therefore, we should assume that they did create such a rule, or interpret the Constitution as if they did.
The first option, a, is an obvious fallacy. Even assuming that they didn’t want birth tourism, it doesn’t follow that the Framers of the Constitution regarded the children born here of resident non-citizens as not being natural born US citizens. And virtually all of our history, law and early legal quotes strongly indicate against the idea.
The second option, b, is simply a position that the Constitution ought to mean whatever we want it to mean, or whatever we think it’s “good” that it means. This is a liberal, “living Constitution” approach. It is NOT a conservative approach, that values and conserves the Constitution AS IT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN.
In fact, it’s not surprising to see the author of this piece, Mara Zebest, a liberal, a Democrat and a disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporter with a grudge against the current President, take this “living Constitution” view. What is surprising is to see some supposed conservatives doing it.
c) is the best argument of the three: That IF the Founding Fathers, writing in 1787, had known that we would have jet airplanes and birth tourism in the year 2013, then they WOULD HAVE established a rule that persons born on US soil had to have citizen parents as well in order to be eligible to the Presidency.
However, this idea fails for much the same reason that item b) does.
If we adopt this approach and attitude toward the United States Constitution, we can just as easily argue that SURELY the Founding Fathers WOULD HAVE wanted ALL Americans to have health care. Surely the Founding Fathers WOULD HAVE wanted young women to be free from the burden of having a child through an unplanned pregnancy. Surely they WOULD HAVE wanted us to take care of everyone who needs taking care of, and WOULD HAVE wanted all American children to be safe from the fear of guns.
The fact is, you can justify just about any rewrite of the Constitution that anybody would like, by playing the game of “the Founders WOULD HAVE wanted this.”
None of these is the proper approach for anyone who actually values and respects the Constitution.
That approach is not to ask, “What WOULD the Framers have wanted?” That approach is to ask, “WHAT DID THEY ACTUALLY SPECIFY?”
And on this point, history is clear. At least, it’s clear to everyone except for the birthers, who desperately want the Framers to have specified that it takes two citizen parents plus birth on US soil to make a natural born citizen.
Every early legal authority of any note at all indicates that the rule for “natural born citizen” was exactly the same as the rule for “natural born subject,” the phrase that it replaced in our laws, except for the difference between “citizen” and “subject.”
This is what you get with Rubio/Conda!
Some tried to do away with the anchor baby situation and this is what they were met with!
[I]n recent days, former aides to both Vice President Dick Cheney and President George W. Bush, who pushed for comprehensive immigration reform, have condemned the calls by top Republicans to end birthright citizenship.
Cesar Conda, who served as domestic policy adviser to Cheney, has called such proposals offensive. Mark McKinnon, who served as media adviser in Bushs two presidential campaigns, said Republicans risk losing their rightful claim to the 14th Amendment if they continue to demagogue the issue.
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Republicans and 63% of voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose automatic U.S. citizenship for children born in this country to illegal immigrants. Democrats are evenly divided on the question.
Rasmussen Reports, April 19, 2011
BUT...the author of this new amnesty, Rubio’s chief of staff, Cesar Conda has called such proposals offensive.