Birth tourism hotel in Southern California may lose its permit

San Jose Mercury ^ | December 18, 2019 | Roxana Kopetman

[artichokegrower]

The JR Motel in Orange has no sign, takes no reservations and hasn’t paid any city hotel taxes. The motel openly caters to Chinese nationals as a maternity facility, a practice known as birth tourism. But that’s not the use permitted for the site, at 428 E. Lincoln Avenue. City officials in Orange are looking to revoke the motel’s permit, something the motel’s owner says is driven by discrimination.

[artichokegrower]

After the meeting, motel owner Chih Huang said he believes the commissioners are discriminating against the facility because they don’t approve of its maternity mission.

It's not a maternity mission. It's a defrauding Americans by giving birthright citizenship to the children of foreign tourist.

[SanchoP]

What are they going to do about the hundreds of private residences along the Mexican border that do exactly the same thing?

[entropy12]

We are the only (significant or major) country in the world who has this illogical law about birth citizenship.

[ptsal]

I would wager that other taxes have been avoided and/or understated.

Where are the bean-counters from the IRS?

[Lurkinanloomin]

Amazingly many FReepers think those Chinese babies are natural born citizens eligible to be President.

[Vigilanteman]

An English chum of mine from a former life put it this way— If your cat had kittens in an orange crate, would they be oranges?

[PGR88]

There are dozens of these operations in California. Chinese women pay as much as $60-80K to stay in apartments until they give birth.

And if a problem happens - they are sent to public hospitals, because remember, no person gets refused treatment - and YOU pay for it.

[Zhang Fei]

[Amazingly many FReepers think those Chinese babies are natural born citizens eligible to be President.]

---

No thinking involved. The current Supreme Court interpretation is that anyone born in this country is a natural born citizen. Until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, that interpretation stands. Freeper beliefs have nothing to do with it.

You might believe you have the right to carry a pistol wherever you wish to, without a permit, thanks to the 2nd Amendment. The reality, however, thanks to the Supreme Court’s interpretation, is that if you do so in many states, and are stopped by the police, you will face a prison term.

There are people who believe the income tax is unconstitutional and the state has no power to compel them to pay. The ones who acted on this belief by not paying their income taxes are either in Federal prison or exile.

[Lurkinanloomin]

The Supreme Court in Minor vs Happersett 1874

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.

[Zhang Fei]

[The Supreme Court in Minor vs Happersett 1874]

---

Unless you have a time machine for the entire country, we ain’t getting back to 1874. If RBG croaks and Trump replaces her with a conservative, we *might* get birthright citizenship overturned. But the *current* Supreme Court interpretation, echoed throughout all the lower courts, is that someone who acquired his citizenship by being born in this country is a natural born citizen. It’s practically common law with these people. Unfortunately, there is no easy way to curb the random nuttiness of our unelected tyrants-for-life in black. If only the founders had merely given them say, 10-year terms.

[Lurkinanloomin]

That interpretation has never been overturned.
It is still the Supreme Court precedent.

[Zhang Fei]

After numerous challenges to Obama’s eligibility were dismissed, including by conservative judges, it’s clear what the current interpretation is. It’s not the 1874 version. They did not even give it the dignity of a reversal - they ignored it completely, much as you and I would pick a different condiment for a given main course.

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

[Lurkinanloomin]

Ignoring it is how we lose the Constitution.

[SoConPubbie]

Just down the street from me.

[Mack the knife]

Unless you have a time machine for the entire country, we ain’t getting back to 1874.

---

It is my understanding that the policy of the US Passport office was to not issue passports to anchor babies (neither parent was a citizen) until 1965 (???) … when an unnamed Passport official simply changed the policy without rule change in the Federal Register or a change in law by Congress.