Posted on 03/16/2010 7:44:32 AM PDT by La Lydia
First there was Korean birth tourism, where pregnant Korean women would come to the United States as tourists in order to ensure their babies were U.S. citizens. Then Tucson hospitals started offering "birth packages" to expectant Mexican mothers. And now, this:
With more Turkish parents wanting their child to be born in the US, tourism companies are starting to offer 'birth tourism' packages to US cities. Many women say giving birth in the US has benefits including cheaper education and fewer visa worries. Some Americans, however, want to restrict the practice, citing fears of illegal migration...
Arrrrrrghhhhh! For many people, including some here at the Corner, the solution is to end automatic citizenship at birth, but I'm not a fan...The way we determine citizenship is simple and decentralized we need to do a better job of tracking birth records to ensure they're legitimate, but if they are, that's all you need to demonstrate citizenship, so there's no need to petition a bureaucrat in Washington.
But . . . if you're going to keep automatic citizenship at birth, there are two things you can't do wink at massive illegal immigration (almost one out of 10 births in the U.S. is to an illegal alien...) and give visitor visas to pregnant women. Amazingly, our consular officers are not permitted to turn down a visa applicant simply because she'll soon give birth. That needs to change so that the default position is that women who might give birth during their temporary stay here should not be approved for visas. Otherwise, foreigners will be able to decide completely on their own who will and will not be a member of the American people....
(Excerpt) Read more at corner.nationalreview.com ...
As I said, "If moms a tourist, so is the kid." State Dept. can arrange routine brief extensions of the mother's visa (and, thereby, the newborn's implicit visa) for post-partum recovery.
But no, even if the mom is a tourist, the kid become a citizen. That’s the point. This needs to be changed.
I agree. My initial post said that what most civilized countries do is accord the baby the same status as the mother-at-the-time-of-birth. And that in such a country, we wouldn’t have this problem, etc.
You somehow seem to have skipped over that part of my very short comment.
Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Barbados Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Chile (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request) Colombia Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Fiji Grenada Guatemala Guyana Honduras Jamaica Lesotho Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Pakistan Panama Paraguay Peru Saint Christopher and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago United States Uruguay and Venezuela.
I was not clear. By example, USSR never had an open borders problem. Neither does Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China, North Vietnam, etc.
European (soft) socialism is a different animal. Socialism there has not done enough damage such that they need to close their borders to keep people in.
Actually, the only reason I did post was because of the demographic question lurking in my mind. These anchor baby families should also be pro-family, hopefully willing to work?
Good grief...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.