Anybody have the experience here that I have often where your coworker/neighbor/friend of friend, is going to the USA to give birth to their baby so that they get a US passport for the baby and then return to Taiwan a month later. My wife showed me many full page ads in baby magazines here advertising a complete inclusive service package including round trip air ticket, USA passport for the baby, hospital care in chinese, after care service in Chinese including the one month confinement services “dwoh yed zeh” all for one price of about NT200,000
Does it work? Do you get a passport just for being born in the USA?
Also, I find it amusing that this kind of thing is so popular… especially because so many Taiwanese have this underlying hatred of the US… (OK maybe I put that too strongly.) But look at popular reaction to the Chinese Spy plane incident (America attacking “our” Chinese sovereignty!!!) or September 11th (Well, the USA brought it upon themselves.)
Such disdain and sneering… and yet…that is where wealthy Taiwanese people seem to want their kids to grow up and where Taiwanese politicians like to buy real estate.
What a joke!! This is Animal farm all over again. Bin Laden will impregnated his 200 wives, as will all of the other terrorists, their wives’ll then sneak over to the states for 12 months and give birth. The kids will off coarse be citizens, the army will already be there - here comes the great American Cival War (mark II)
quote[quote]Also, I find it amusing that this kind of thing is so popular... especially because so many Taiwanese have this underlying hatred of the US [/quote]Come again [img]images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img] [img]images/smiles/icon_confused.gif[/img]
Personally, no one I know responded that way to either event. For 9/11, I can see where some people would but for the spy plane? I mean, weren’t we spying on all the missiles pointed at Taiwan anyway?
As for the citizenship thing, that’s true. Anyone born on US soil (including embassies, army bases abroad, and navy ships) is a citizen or at least has the right to citizenship.
Anyone know any other countries that share this policy?
Among colleagues and office workers of friends, there was a lot of comment along the lines of “American hegemonism” and “America thinks it can just do what it wants” (speaking of the spy plane) and then of September 11th, I have heard : “they brought it on themselves”… “it will bring them down a peg or two.”
I have to say, that when I heard these things myself or when my friends heard them, it was with one exception, always said in Chinese and quite often was by eavesdropping rather than directly joining in the conversation.
I think they are sentiments that Taiwanese are not keen to share with foreigners, but feel nevertherless.
Oh, and yes, “hatred” was too strong a word - as I admitted in my original post… perhaps a better phrasing would be: “contempt” “disdain” “anger”.
Whatever the right word, I have always detected an undercurrent of anti-US sentiment. Is it motivated by envy???
I dunno.
Would be interested to know what Taiwanese REALLY think of the US and how they talk about it between themselves.
They are simply saying what most people the world over said to each other. Oh my God that’s terrible and now maybe that’ll realise the world is bigger than America.
Almost all countries have that rule about becoming an automatic citizen if you are born there, but try living there without your family (family does not get automatic residence rights).
In the main it’s so they can go to high school and college there and pay reduced fees. Fair enough they are clever enough to do it and it’s all legal (unlike a lot of English teachers here).
I wish I could strangle mothers who do that. These people pick Americans apart and then turn around and pull this kind of crap so their kids can become US citizens. I think it is so sad and pathetic. No wait, maybe I should take that as a compliment they are so willing to pull such a sorry feat. Hopefully the airport x-rays will stunt the growth of their fetuses.
Hey, AIT visa people, wake up! Let’s make sure we’re not giving women who are preggars US visas! There’s nothing more I hate than sitting next to some old Taiwanese couple on a plane who can barely speak English and watch them whip out their green cards they got because their daughter was ready to drop at the right place. And I can speak Chinese better than most Taiwanese and have to jump through hoops to get a resident permit. I played it straight as far as getting a work permit is concerned. No fake diplomas, no crap.
quote: Whatever the right word, I have always detected an undercurrent of anti-US sentiment. Is it motivated by envy???
Don’t take this personally, but as was once discussed (by an American) before on this forum, I think there is an undercurrent of anti-US sentiment in just about every country int he world. Sometimes it may be envy, but most of the time it’s because the US is the world’s biggest (only?) superpower and is not afraid to use this fact to it’s advantage and sod what the rest of the world thinks. Most of the time this is the government’s fault, not the individual citizens, so this isn’t a dig at you yanks OK?
A few comments on acquisition of U.S. citizenship.
quote[quote] Does it work? Do you get a passport just for being born in the USA? [/quote]
The United States recognizes the U.S. citizenship of individuals according to two fundamental principles: jus soli, or right of birthplace, and jus sanguinis, or right of blood. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship at birth to almost all individuals born in the United States or in U.S. jurisdictions, according to the principle of jus soli.
Certain individuals born outside of the United States are born citizens because of their parents, according to the principle of jus sanguinis(which holds that the country of citizenship of a child is the same as that of his / her parents). The U.S. Congress is responsible for enacting laws that determine how citizenship is conveyed by a U.S. citizen parent or parents according to the principle of jus sanguinis. These laws are contained in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).
quote: As for the citizenship thing, that's true. Anyone born on US soil (including embassies, army bases abroad, and navy ships) is a citizen or at least has the right to citizenship.
Not exactly. The comment in parenthesis following “Anyone born on US soil …” is incorrect. As cited at the beginning, the principle of jus sanguinis governs and should a baby parented by non-U.S. citizens be born on a U.S. military installation outside the U.S., or at a U.S. diplomatic mission, the child would have the citizenship of his/her parents. For example, many years ago while serving in the Air Force my older son was born at the U.S. Army hospital in Weisbaden Germany. His U.S. citizenship did not derive from the fact that he was born on a U.S. military installation, but from the fact that his parents were U.S. citizens (jus sanguinis). The paperwork that we filled out to establish his citizenship centered only on our ability to transmit citizenship according to U.S. law - The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). See specifically the INA section 301 (warning - a high tolerance for boredom is required to get through the INA).
quote[quote] Hey, AIT visa people, wake up! Let's make sure we're not giving women who are preggars US visas! [/quote]
Well, OK. But what would be the point? It is not illegal, nor is it a violation of visa law for a non-U.S. citizen to give birth while visiting the U.S. If a woman has a baby while in the States, then according to the 14th Amendment of the Constitution that child is granted U.S. citizenship - end of discussion. As for those who poor mouth the U.S., but hedge their bets by arranging for a child or grandchild to be born in the States, OK fine - they’re hypocritical boneheads. Department of State Consular Officers adjudicate visa requests based on the requirements set forth in the INA. Refusing visa requests from all pregnant women simply because they might give birth while in the States (inasmuch as doing so does not violate the INA) would be inconsistent with U.S. policy, not to mention really, really unfair.
quote:What is the score if a woman was to give birth inside a plane whilst it was in American airspace.
Does this child also qualify for citizenship ?
That would depend on where that actual plane was made. Now if some parts were made in the US, but other parts were made in Switzerland and Germany, then they'd need to determine where the majority of the plane was made. Another important thing to remember though is, if the Pilot, and I'm specific on Pilot too, delivers the actual baby himself, you can, by naming him the born childs godfather, claim his nationality as your babies own too. Co Pilot, no cigar apparently.
Yes, the US is the world’s only superpower…
And it acts to its own advantage, regardless of what the rest of the world thinks…? less convinced of this…
I mean, yes, countries do act in their own interests of course… but the US is by far the most responsible nation in terms of its foreign policy… Wouldn’t you prefer to have the US in charge, rather than more (even) more cynical nations?
The decision to have children born in the US is surely an admission that their education and values are in some way superior to what is on offer at home. And yet why, then, sneer at the US’s attempt to stand up for these values overseas???
(By the way, Bu Lai En - its always difficult to tell a person’s nationality when you are standing face to face - even harder on the internet. I am not American - never even been there.)
I guess I just find this ambivalent attitude rather perplexing. So, what is it? I have never had a really good answer… People admire US values so much that they want to indoctrinate their kids with them, but then squeal when the US tries to promote those values abroad.
Would be delighted to hear a response telling me what the “beef” is… rather than just “superpower envy.”
Canadian? Interesting you think that. I thought we Canadians were supposed to have a self-image problem as regards the US.
I do not think my nationality is the issue here. I will, however, admit to having a love of the free market, capitalism, individual freedom, individual responsibility, and err… alcohol.
I think the “beef” stems from a growing sense of resentment towards the US in terms of its lack of regard for the international community. Often the US acts alone to promote its interests. Case in point the Kyoto protocol, ABM treaty, recent attempts to weaken the International Criminal Court, the list could go on if I had time to do the research. The US may be winning the battles by promoting its interests in these areas, but it’s losing the greater world-wide PR war.
The US is a country governed basically by documents. It works when people follow the laws, because the laws are usually designed through consensus to provide a fairly objective basis for justice.
The problem now is that the US appears to disdain this ‘consensus’ approach on the international stage. The US has a disproportionate amount of power to the rest of the world. Little mistakes in a country as powerful as the US have global repercussions.
Unilateral action is what pisses people off more than anything. People of other nations feel a lack of empowerment.
I think one of the key issues here is that people outside America simply don’t use and have no comprehension of the word “empowerment”. To us, American foreign policy is incomprehensible gobbledegook, and has been since McCarthyism. The “House Committee on un-American Activities”. Gobbledegook. Segregate blacks in America, criticise South Africa for doing same. Gobbledegook. We hate the PLO - now we love the PLO. Gobbledegook. Communism in Europe - tolerated, communism in Asia - fight a war (2 wars). Gobbledegook. IRA good - al Quaeda bad. Gobbledegook. And so on.
Everything America has done in foreign policy since the Second World War is incomprehensible, and the State Department’s explanations are the very definition of Orwellian DoubleSpeak. That is not to say I don’t agree with American foreign policy, but it is fruitless to try and seek out guiding principles or predict what it might be in the future. It would be a victory for common sense if the State Department just stopped trying to explain itself and just got on with whatever it is that it is doing.