“Birth tourism”? Nope, “anchor babies” is much more precise. And folks getting upset because the guy mentioned Asians, like this isn’t a very real thing? I’m sure I’m not the only English teacher in Taiwan who knows of plenty of anchor babies. Just imagine the number from China. So yeah, it’s a real thing, and why would anyone get upset about talking about it?
China is using kids to take over the US. .
It doesn’t work in most countries because they don’t confer citizenship based on birth. Trump says that should change but it would require a constitutional amendment which is VERY hard to do.
Canada takes citizenship by birth seriously. Someone born on a plane flying over Canada is granted citizenship on that basis!
Miss, LA, TX, Al, NM, Az, Wa, Or ----8 states I bet would ratify it before the ink dries.
Please. China has actual travel agencies who specialize in birth tourism to the US. Korea has similar though it’s done on the low-key.
That’s not enough. You need at least 40 states to ratify it. That won’t happen, it takes like 8 states to stop it. You need 3/4 of all states to approve it in order to make a constitutional amendment. This is why it’s extremely hard. Not to mention you need a super majority in Congress to even begin the process.
Here’s the /s I forgot to included. Yes, I know it would need more than 8 states. However in a sarcastic tone I meantioned 8 states as if to suggest that it wouldn’t have a problem passing as you stated earlier.
taiwan should do the opposite, offer reasonably priced child delivery to american couples.
we will get more people coming in and the obstetricians will get to keep their skills and not run out of women giving birth in an aging society
From the past:
Agree on offering services. But then people would accuse us foreigners of having anchor babies, even though that is legally speaking impossible. But prejudice and all that jazz…
Yep! I support ending birthright citizenship immediately if not sooner.
Here’s the link where this article was originally posted.
You realize that this would also open up the door to question AAs citizenship as well?
What are AAs?
Why? If we do away with birthright citizenship, it will effect everyone equally.
- You may only get US citizenship if one of your parents are a US citizen.
You may only get permanent US residency (green card) if one of your parents are a permanent US resident. This status of course will have a path toward citizenship.
Individuals born in the US will not automatically get US citizenship if at least one of their parents isn’t a US citizen. This will stop all the F1 Student Visa holders from creating anchor babies while in the US for the purpose of study. This will also stop all the illegal entry and overstay individuals from obtaining citizenship for their children to include the birth tourism industry.
Please explain how ending birthright citizenship would somehow single out and impact African Americans. After all, in order to be considered an African American, one must first be an American citizen. Otherwise they are just Africans, right?
What am I missing? Education, please.
Birthright citizenship just might be, former slaves believed, the safeguard they needed. In the decades before the Civil War, in an era when a remedy like the Fourteenth Amendment was hard to imagine, free black Americans embraced the view that they were citizens by virtue of having been born on U.S. soil. It was a lofty claim, especially because the Constitution was largely silent on the matter of who was a citizen and who was not. But for those who were descended from bondspeople, their circumstances were dire. Law and policy appeared to be conspiring against them, aimed directly at their tentative claims to belonging to the nation.
In 1865, Congress passed what would become the Civil Rights Act of 1866, guaranteeing citizenship without regard to race, color, or previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude. The bill also guaranteed equal benefits and access to the law, a direct assault on the Black Codes passed by many post-war states. The Black Codes attempted to return ex-slaves to something like their former condition by, among other things, restricting their movement, forcing them to enter into year-long labor contracts, prohibiting them from owning firearms, and preventing them from suing or testifying in court.[6
Robert Tracinski has a point about the hypothetical EO by Trump being totally unconstitutional, but there’s no substantive argument there for a constitutional amendment to switch from jus soli to jus sanguinis (now or in the future) being racist.
If they made it retroactive, that would be something else, but even in these Trumpian times, I don’t see that happening.
I’m missing how a switch couldn’t have (at least) elements of racism in it. Especially when 14 the admendment was a result of racist practices at the time.
Can you clarify your point for me? Thx
That was a reaction to the situation that existed at the time. The context has changed dramatically.
If the argument were about voter ID laws, having heard an explanation of the problematic situation in the US (no national ID card, certain communities being more/less likely to have certain types of ID, blatant targeting of certain communities for the purpose of promoting certain electoral results), I would see the point of calling it racism. But how would ending jus soli, today, non-retroactively, disenfranchise AA’s?