Posted on 10/28/2011 10:16:18 AM PDT by Steelfish
Born In The U.S.A.: Birth Tourists Get Instant U.S. Citizenship For Their Newborns Oct 28, 2011
By Anna Schecter
A curious global industry has emerged that caters to wealthy foreign women willing to spend tens of thousands of dollars to give birth in the United States and get instant U.S. citizenship for their babies. The hefty price is worth it, according to these women, because it paves the way for easy access to American public schools, universities and jobs as the children get older and green cards for the whole family once the child turns 21.
The women stay at controversial birth tourism centers, often hidden in suburbia. The centers have riled neighbors and ignited outrage on Capitol Hill.
“They are gaming the system…and people should be put in jail,” said Representative Phil Gingrey (R-Ga), one of several members of Congress trying to put an end to birth tourism.
The United States is the only country in the developed world other than Canada that grants jus soli or birthright citizenship. The U.S. law dates back to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, ratified after the Civil War to ensure that all freed slaves and their children would be American citizens.
NBC News gained access to four birth tourism centers in the New York City borough of Queens. The owners, all women, said they know their industry is controversial, but they hope it will soon be recognized and supported by the U.S. government.
“Yes, our business is a sensitive topic, but we have a lot to offer the American culture and economy,” said Katie, a business owner who asked that her last name not be used.
“These women are the economic elite…and they are fueling the economy here. I
(Excerpt) Read more at rockcenter.msnbc.msn.com ...
May I suggest de-caf?
What you are saying is that the law as presently applied is incorrect.
That’s all fine and dandy, but it has no effect until someone gets it to the Supreme Court and a ruling to that effect is issued.
I suspect the Court would be extremely reluctant to remove many millions of citizens that have been counted as such for many decades now. In practice since the 14th Amendment, which is well over a hundred years.
_______________________________
Tourists are subject to our jurisdiction while here. It is diplomats and military attaches who are not.
In the meantime, the anchor baby issue is not a constitutional issue but legislative. The Immigration and Nationality Act is what states that the parents can be petitioned for by the US born child. No constitutional convention or Supreme Court order is required for Congress to say that the parents are ineligible for residence through the US child if they were here illegally when the US child was born. In other words, you can cut the line to the anchor much more easily.
If soetoro is reelected, we ain´t seen nothing yet.
WKA did say that the lawful presence was required in order to enjoy the benefits secured by the Constitution. This would strongly suggest that those who were not here lawfully would NOT enjoy these same benefits:
He is nonetheless an alien because of his having a commercial domicil in this country. While he lawfully remains here, he is entitled to the benefit of the guaranties of life, liberty and property, secured by the Constitution to all persons, of whatever race, within the jurisdiction of the United States.
Lawfulness is connected here toward satisfying what it means to be within the jurisdiction of the U.S.
The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.
Illegal aliens are not under the protection of the US they are fugitives from the US. Students are not permanently domiciled in the US they are allowed entry as non-immigrats and given a specific time to depart. Obamas father was a temporary student and did depart the US before he got his butt deported, and he never would have been allowed entry if it was known he supported polygamy.
I suspect a modern court considering the immese illegal alien and anchor baby problem we have and its negative effects on the US and the position of we the people that birhtright citizenship for illegals is wrond that they would decide against it as long as the two new commies on the bench recused themselve or had their appoointments nullified. The republicans are a$$e$ for letting them get confirmed and letting Obama go unchallenged for his eligibility.
Click the keyword Aliens to see more illegal alien, border security, and other related threads
A very interesting dissent.
Would have been stronger, IMO, had he not chosen to quote from the Dred Scott decision at length to support his opinion. As you no doubt know, that particular decision was overturned only as a consequence of considerable tumult. :)
He also appears to believe a treaty can overrule a constitutional amendment, which I think a very odd position.
What this phrase means in the context of the history of the 14th A is that the parents should owe no allegiance to a foreign power. There were no illegals at the time the 14th A was ratified. It’s clear purpose was to confer US citizenship on newly freed slaves.
OMG! Steelfish! You’ve GOT to be kidding!
Heck, I tried it but didn’t quite format. But good reference book anyway.
I don't disagree with you on the facts of the case as presented and that the other parts were dicta. I just don't believe any justices will be recusing themselves or having their appointments nullified. Hence, we can continue debating the correct interpretation, amend the constitution, or have the Immigration and Nationality Act amended to end the anchor baby incentive. Personally, I think the last one is the most likely to bring change if the Senate and White House change hands in November.
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.