The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Birth Tourism: Nobody in Power Is Serious About It
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Birth tourism is a result of birthright citizenship being granted to any baby who happens to be dropped on American soil. There are lots of financial privileges that ensue. From the L.A. Times:

Why birth tourism from China persists even as U.S. officials crack down

In 2015, the State Department issued 2.27 million visas to Chinese tourists. It does not track what proportion of visas are issued to birth tourists.
Frank Shyong

At 10 a.m. on a cold morning in April at Whittier Medical Center, Sophia was born.

She was a healthy baby girl at 7 pounds and 1 ounce, with a future in America to look forward to, if she chose it.

Her mother, Tracy, came from Shanghai to give her this choice — a chance at the world’s best education, a safe childhood and reliable medical care without long lines.

“I’m here to give my kids better options,” said Tracy, who asked to be referred to by her first name because she has read stories about U.S. officials cracking down on mothers who come to America to give birth.

But it would be inhumane for American officials to force a Shanghai person to go home to the primitive wasteland that is Shanghai:

Even as middle class incomes in China enjoy explosive growth, and 96% of Chinese people in a recent Pew Research poll say their lives are better than their parents’, an unknown number of “birth tourists” like Tracy cross oceans each year to have their babies in America.

And in America’s Chinese enclaves, they find a cottage industry of Chinese midwives, drivers and doctors who accept cash and “maternity hotels” — apartments or homes run as hotels for the women during their pregnancies.

Chinese listing sites show several hundred maternity hotels in Southern California, though it’s not clear how many of the listings are active.

Anyone who lies about the purpose of their visit to the U.S. can be charged with visa fraud, but birth tourism per se is not illegal.

“There is nothing in the law that makes it illegal for pregnant women to enter the United States,” said Virginia Kice, a spokeswoman for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Critics, however, blast the practice as a way to gain citizenship for children by unfairly gaming the immigration system. And spurred in part by those complaints, U.S. officials at every level are exploring ways to crack down on maternity hotels.

That the practice persists, birth tourists say, is a testament to the hold that America still has on Chinese imaginations.

Restrictive family planning policies may have driven some Chinese mothers to give birth in America before 2015, when the one-child policy ended. But many others are simply curious about America and exploring the possibility of a life in the U.S., said Kelly, a birth tourist who has settled in Riverside County’s Eastvale neighborhood.

“China has developed very quickly,” said Kelly, who also declined to provide her first name. “But … Chinese people still have this perception of America as a dream place to live, that it is bigger, better, stronger.”

In 2015, the State Department issued 2.27 million visas to Chinese tourists. It does not track what proportion of visas are issued to birth tourists.

Do you ever get the feeling that our government isn’t really trying on immigration fraud?

Childbirth is a legitimate reason to travel to the U.S., and as long as Chinese nationals provide the correct paperwork and evidence they can pay for their medical care, they will be issued a visa, department officials said. …

In the San Gabriel Valley, where birth hotels are an open secret, local leaders field a steady stream of complaints from area residents who oppose maternity hotels. In Chino Hills, a group of residents protested the presence of birth hotels in the neighborhood, and Arcadia police even assigned a detective to investigate the businesses in response to residents’ complaints.

In 2013, Los Angeles County formed a birth tourism task force to tackle the issue. The task force has identified and cited 34 birthing hotel operators for running businesses on land that is zoned for residential use. But there is still no county regulation against running hotels for foreign nationals traveling to the U.S. for the sole purpose of giving birth. …

Karin Wang, a vice president at Asian Americans Advancing Justice, says she is concerned that such attitudes toward birth tourism reflect xenophobia and anti-Asian sentiment. She cast birth tourism as the side effect of a broken immigration system.

“If the immigration system itself worked better, then these convoluted paths that people take to secure status in America would lessen or disappear,” Wang said.

If only the U.S. government simply declared all 1.2 billion Chinese and their posterity unto the seventh generation to be U.S. citizens with all the rights and privileges such as instate tuition at Berkeley and financial aid at USC, this problem would be solved.

By the way, something that most Americans don’t realize is that the college financial aid system (which is, most importantly, price discounts on tuition based on your financial status) is largely restricted to American citizens. My sons received six figures worth of “grants” (i.e., discounts off the list price), which they wouldn’t have been eligible for if they weren’t American citizens. Foreigners typically pay list price at American undergrad colleges.

Not that many Americans understand this benefit to American citizenship — colleges don’t spell it out that often because it seems politically incorrect these days for American colleges to discriminate in favor of Americans. Fortunately, the system was set up awhile ago, so it does. Not many Americans understand this, but lots of Chinese do. So that’s one motivation for birth tourism — if your kid is an American citizen, you can save a bundle 18 years later on American college tuition.

On a recent weekday in Rowland Heights, a block from the birth hotels raided by immigration officials last year, Target was having a 50%-off sale on baby clothes and items. Pregnant Chinese mothers packed the aisles.

Tracy settled into a chair at the Starbucks in the Target, wrapped a jacket around Sophia, installed a toy in her chubby fists, then warmed her hands on a cappuccino.

For better or worse, Chinese mothers’ first impression of American life is often in places like Rowland Heights, a mostly-Asian sprawling suburb of homes and vast strip malls 25 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

Birth tourism is the neighborhood’s incognito economic engine — dozens of pregnant Chinese women visit these shopping centers each day, … Among the baby stores, there are home loans on offer, car rentals to go see the homes, real estate agents to guide shoppers and immigration attorneys to handle paperwork.

Many mothers, like Tracy, consider staying. Her reasons have more to do with China’s flaws than U.S. freedoms.

In Shanghai, she says, the buildings are tall and modern, but the rent is high. The skyline is beautiful, but the air isn’t clean and the food isn’t safe. The airport is architecturally impressive but inconvenient. The people speak her language, but they are always judging and comparing, evaluating the clothes she wears, the home and neighborhood she lives in, the school her children will attend. A life in America is a break from all of that.

“Here people are not so competitive, trying to wear better clothes and use better things,” Tracy said. “I don’t even have to wear makeup.” …

Rowland Heights, along with Arcadia and Irvine, have long been plagued with rumors that the communities host “mistress villages” — a slang term in China to describe a housing complex where rich Chinese men house their mistresses.

The rumors are unverifiable …

For the time being, they plan to stay.

“We haven’t really decided that we want to be American, but we like America,” Kelly said.

You like us, you really like us!

I’m going to try that line of psychology at Augusta National where they hold The Masters. I’ll show up with my golf clubs and say, “I haven’t really decided that I want to be an Augusta National member, but I like Augusta,” and see if they feel so flattered that I like their country club that they will tell me to play anytime I like. It seems to work on Americans, so maybe it will work on Bill Gates’ and Warren Buffett’s club?

 
Hide 122 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Is this really worth fixing? From what I can tell
    A) it’s a small fraction (couple of percent) of total annual immigration, and
    B) it’s a fraction of the totally “legit” births to non-immigrants (tourist, students, guest workers etc.)

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there’s a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Vinay

    Millions of illegal immigrants having children here. Offspring of mere legal residents shouldn't receive citizenship either. If the parents are not entitled to it, neither should their children be.

    , @Olorin
    @Vinay

    This is like saying "Don't bother reclinkering the hull this winter because even the most snug hulls leak a little."

    Replies: @TWS

    , @donut
    @Vinay

    I was born in the USA I don't want to die in India , China , Mexico or Pakistan .

    , @wren
    @Vinay

    I think births to illegal immigrants in the US account for eight or nine percent of total births.

    That compounds over the years.

    I wonder what percent of "legitimate" visas are given out to the family, and extended families of anchor babies.

    Replies: @Vinay

    , @bomag
    @Vinay


    Unless there’s a cheap, quickie fix, of course.
     
    A stroke of the pen gave us birth tourism; a stroke of the pen would take it away.

    One is too many.
    , @ben tillman
    @Vinay


    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there’s a cheap, quickie fix, of course.
     
    There is no "immigration-restrictionist buck". Immigration restriction turns a profit.
    , @anonguy
    @Vinay


    Is this really worth fixing? From what I can tell
    A) it’s a small fraction (couple of percent) of total annual immigration, and
    B) it’s a fraction of the totally “legit” births to non-immigrants (tourist, students, guest workers etc.)

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there’s a cheap, quickie fix, of course.
     
    Dimes make dollars
    , @Daniel Chieh
    @Vinay

    I'm a little dubious but it is a pretty evident issue of the Chinese gaming the system, something that we're reknown for. I do think that we should do something about it. Not to mention, as it is now, we're pretty much rewarding the exact corrupt people that President Xi is trying to stop.

    Quite literally, its like he's stopping their stupidity in China, and they just go somewhere else to reboot it anew. Is this really the kind of people you would like to welcome?

    I mean, its not like these people are even intending to truly be American in any way. They're literally just making sure that their children collect a citizenship. While its a brilliant scam, and the US is probably profiting from it, its hard to justify how this makes any moral sense.

    , @The preferred nomenclature is...
    @Vinay

    Yes there is a quick fix. Don't give citizenship to foreign babies just because they are born on U.S. soil!

    Freakin' troll.

    , @notsaying
    @Vinay

    Birth tourism is an extreme example of a extremely stupid immigration policy.

    It gives a lifetime "We Owe You" card, via a birth certificate, to someone who is born here and then gone in a few weeks. Even people who are normally unable to say NO to anything about immigrants can say NO! to this obvious lunacy.

    The symbolism is very important here. Making this illegal would prove to ourselves and the world that we can make objective decisions and rational limits to our immigration system. It would signify an end to automatic birthright citizenship to all infants.

    I would be all for using this side issue as a start to get us going on the larger immigration issues.

  2. The United States is just not a serious country anymore. This shouldn’t even be a difficult issue–children born to foreign diplomats on U.S. “soil” are not American citizens, so why should children born to foreigners also on U.S. soil for the express purposes of gaming the system be automatic U.S. citizens? I’m reminded of the Tunisian terrorist who couldn’t be deported because Tunisia wouldn’t take him back (smart people, those Tunisians) but who couldn’t be detained because, well, as I remember it, he didn’t have any papers. The West is so tied up in legalisms it can no longer act to preserve its own existence. It’s almost like being a body that’s lost its ability to recognize disease organisms.

    • Agree: RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @Diversity Heretic

    Don't be silly; of course the children born on American soil to foreign diplomats and alien invaders expressly here in contempt and mockery of our systems are American citizens as much as those of us descended from founding stock. It's well settled law, and to even suggest otherwise is un-American and a violation of the invaders' basic civil rights under the penumbras of the Zeroth Amendment. Just ask congresswoman and renowned constitutional law expert Anna Eshoo (D – Assyria).

    Replies: @Olorin, @colm

    , @Desiderius
    @Diversity Heretic


    The United States is just not a serious country anymore.
     
    It is, but until Jan 20 it will be ruled by those who are not citizens of it alone, but principally citizens of the world, whose purported interests take precedence.

    As this is all implicit, it unfortunately often plays out as if subnational interests were paramount with the transnational as cover.

  3. But how do the mothers stay? Don’t their visas run out? Do they just stay illegally indefinitely? How do they get by?

    • Replies: @International Jew
    @Anonymous

    They only need to stay long enough to give birth and obtain an American birth certificate. Then they can go home. But seventeen years later their child, as an American citizen, can come to America to study or work or whatever.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @Travis
    @Anonymous

    Good point...it is too easy for them to stay, as America has no enforcement mechanism for deporting those whip overstay their visas...all the foreigners know this, once they arrive on American soil with a visa they are basically legal residents and have zero risk of being deported. There are so many Chinese run businesses here in America, they can easily find work if they need to.

  4. Her reasons have more to do with China’s flaws than U.S. freedoms.

    If you still fail to get into Augusta, tell ’em: “it’s not that this place is so great, but the course on the other side of town pretty terrible”.

    • LOL: Triumph104
  5. Well, Trump has said a few things about it…

    Republican frontrunner Donald Trump doesn’t believe babies born in the United States to undocumented immigrant parents are American citizens.

    “I don’t think they have American citizenship and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — and I know some will disagree, but many of them agree with me — and you’re going to find they do not have American citizenship,” Trump said Tuesday in an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly. “We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell.”

    Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

    The real estate magnate, however, claims that those born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrants don’t have full citizens’ rights. “What happens is they’re in Mexico, they’re going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby,” he told O’Reilly. Trump asserted, “Many lawyers are saying that’s not the way it is in terms of this,” and went on to say, “They are saying it is not going to hold up in court. It will have to be tested but they say it will not hold up in court.”

    The GOP presidential hopeful does not, however, support amending the Constitution to repeal birthright citizenship, saying it would be a “long process.”

    “I think it would take too long,” he told Fox News. “I’d much rather find out whether or not anchor babies are citizens because a lot of people don’t think they are. We’re going to test it out.”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/donald-trump-anchor-babies-arent-american-citizens/

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @wren

    Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

    Writes the CNN reporter. But on what authority? The plain language of the constitutional amendment gives a very different meaning, as its scope is limited to people alive at the time of enactment. This interpretation is supported by the historical context and purpose of the amendment.

    (My sense, moreover, is that such an interpretation would have broad popular support, across party lines, especially among women and especially if it is tied to anchor baby tourism. But again, there should be no birthright citizenship for any offspring of non-citizens, either.)

    Trump should make this interpretation of the citizenship clause THE litmus test for all district, circuit, and, especially, Supreme Court appointees.

    , @snorlax
    @wren

    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it's too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away).

    And there's no way such an effort wouldn't fail at the current Supreme Court.

    If Trump/successor appoints replacements for Ginsberg and Souter, then it might be worth a shot, assuming all the relative low-hanging fruit (wall, visas, deportations, legal immigration) has already been taken care of.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Wilkey, @ben tillman, @colm

  6. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    The 14th amendment was adopted in 1868 and pertained to making slaves citizens.

    Isn’t it about time our government demonstrated that it is capable of progress? That it can be flexible, that it can change with the times? All that good stuff that the right form of government is supposed to bring a country?

    Or does the US government take centuries to even address common-sense things?

  7. anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “Is this really worth fixing?”

    Yes, absolutely. It was designed for a situation about a 150 years ago, fixing it is long overdue. And it never pays for a government policy to just look stupid.

    “…in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority.”

    No, exact opposite. Fix the small easy-to-fix leaks in the boat immediately.

  8. @Vinay
    Is this really worth fixing? From what I can tell
    A) it's a small fraction (couple of percent) of total annual immigration, and
    B) it's a fraction of the totally "legit" births to non-immigrants (tourist, students, guest workers etc.)

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there's a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Olorin, @donut, @wren, @bomag, @ben tillman, @anonguy, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @notsaying

    Millions of illegal immigrants having children here. Offspring of mere legal residents shouldn’t receive citizenship either. If the parents are not entitled to it, neither should their children be.

  9. A great bamboozling idea the Left has foistered upon Americans in regards to immigration is that the stories you read in 6th Grade about little Irish and Jewish peasants coming through Ellis Island after months on a leaky, disease-encrusted boat in 1880 to escape pograms and famine and oppression and disease are exactly true and still apply today to everyone; that’s how everyone comes over, don’tcha know?

    We need to update immigration imagery with major corrections, beyond the racial, religious, and cultural:

    Transportation makes immigration way, way different today. Outside of Cubans on boats fleeing Leftism in full force, people are either stepping off 21st century jets onto American soil or crawling across the border from a livable-lower-class country to take a job at half price and get their family on welfare or else to spend half the year back in their home country living like kings.

    This latter version—the “immigrants” not immigrating at all, but only doing part-year work to become fat and wealthy for the rest of the year at home—is something I seldom see told on the immigration patriot websites, but is a pretty good argument against open borders as well. They aren’t here to become Americans, they’re here to exploit the differences between first and third world pay—and take jobs from both Americans and actual immigrants. I know this is true because I have family members in blue-collar industries who have guys like this regularly working with them and bragging about it (Central Amercians).

    None are facing starvation, pograms, or famine.

    The Ellis Island stories do not apply.

    P.S. We should also point out that the Founding Fathers did not think immigration was immutable; this is why it is not part of the Constitution, other than who gets to direct the policy. That strongly implies that immigration policies should be fluid, on the fly, and change with the times.

    Ellis Island stories were fine to help those folks then. But the times have changed, such policies are not useful now.

    • Agree: Frau Katze
    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @whorefinder

    This latter version—the “immigrants” not immigrating at all, but only doing part-year work to become fat and wealthy for the rest of the year at home—is something I seldom see told on the immigration patriot websites, but is a pretty good argument against open borders as well

    This was actually very common in the late 19th century. Many immigrants assumed at some point they would go home to the old country and live like kings. Trump's grandfather apparently would have moved back to Germany had the King of Bavaria not said no. My great-grandfather had always intended to move back to his Italian village, and had gone back and forth a few times in the decade before 1914. World War I put an end to that and forced German, Italian and Central European immigrants to assimilate. This part of the story is also ignored in immigration fairy tales. In the 19th century immigration created huge social issues in the US that mostly ended only when immigration slowed down dramatically in the early 20th century.

    Replies: @Abe

    , @3g4me
    @whorefinder

    The "left" didn't foist the Ellis Island narrative on Americans; the Ellis Island (((immigrants and their descendants))) created and maintain the entire narrative. The first thing any immigrant in America desires is more of his own people.

    The "melting pot" myth and meme was created by Israel Zangwill, an (((immigrant))) in England. The zeroth amendment was created by another (((immigrant's))) poem attached to France's gift of "Liberty Raising Her Torch." When there was no welfare, half of all immigrants returned to their native lands because they couldn't survive in America. When the host population maintained a strong confidence in the superiority of its language and culture and traditions, the immigrants were forced (to greater and lesser degrees) to at least superficially assimilate. Of course, (((immigrants))) in New York forced the removal of the very word "Christmas" from all New York public school textbooks and song books in 1906, but hey, (((they))) and (((their descendants))), now all constitutional scholars, tell everyone what the Founders REALLY meant by "our posterity."

    Replies: @Anonymous

  10. @wren
    Well, Trump has said a few things about it...

    Republican frontrunner Donald Trump doesn't believe babies born in the United States to undocumented immigrant parents are American citizens.

    "I don't think they have American citizenship and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers -- and I know some will disagree, but many of them agree with me -- and you're going to find they do not have American citizenship," Trump said Tuesday in an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. "We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell."

    Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

    The real estate magnate, however, claims that those born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrants don't have full citizens' rights. "What happens is they're in Mexico, they're going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby," he told O'Reilly. Trump asserted, "Many lawyers are saying that's not the way it is in terms of this," and went on to say, "They are saying it is not going to hold up in court. It will have to be tested but they say it will not hold up in court."

    The GOP presidential hopeful does not, however, support amending the Constitution to repeal birthright citizenship, saying it would be a "long process."

    "I think it would take too long," he told Fox News. "I'd much rather find out whether or not anchor babies are citizens because a lot of people don't think they are. We're going to test it out."
     

    http://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/donald-trump-anchor-babies-arent-american-citizens/

    Replies: @Opinionator, @snorlax

    Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

    Writes the CNN reporter. But on what authority? The plain language of the constitutional amendment gives a very different meaning, as its scope is limited to people alive at the time of enactment. This interpretation is supported by the historical context and purpose of the amendment.

    (My sense, moreover, is that such an interpretation would have broad popular support, across party lines, especially among women and especially if it is tied to anchor baby tourism. But again, there should be no birthright citizenship for any offspring of non-citizens, either.)

    Trump should make this interpretation of the citizenship clause THE litmus test for all district, circuit, and, especially, Supreme Court appointees.

    • Agree: ben tillman
  11. Fascinating quotation from the article:

    For better or worse, Chinese mothers’ first impression of American life is often in places like Rowland Heights, a mostly-Asian sprawling suburb of homes and vast strip malls 25 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.

    ‘For better or worse . . .’? Is the writer actually worry-editorializing that these gravid ladies might be finding their new host country insufficiently impressive and welcoming? Perhaps the US government should step in to address this horrible injustice by implementing a new program to build birth-tourist hotels in nicer places such as Santa Barbara and La Jolla. We should provide shuttle service from LAX also, of course.

  12. @Diversity Heretic
    The United States is just not a serious country anymore. This shouldn't even be a difficult issue--children born to foreign diplomats on U.S. "soil" are not American citizens, so why should children born to foreigners also on U.S. soil for the express purposes of gaming the system be automatic U.S. citizens? I'm reminded of the Tunisian terrorist who couldn't be deported because Tunisia wouldn't take him back (smart people, those Tunisians) but who couldn't be detained because, well, as I remember it, he didn't have any papers. The West is so tied up in legalisms it can no longer act to preserve its own existence. It's almost like being a body that's lost its ability to recognize disease organisms.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Desiderius

    Don’t be silly; of course the children born on American soil to foreign diplomats and alien invaders expressly here in contempt and mockery of our systems are American citizens as much as those of us descended from founding stock. It’s well settled law, and to even suggest otherwise is un-American and a violation of the invaders’ basic civil rights under the penumbras of the Zeroth Amendment. Just ask congresswoman and renowned constitutional law expert Anna Eshoo (D – Assyria).

    • Replies: @Olorin
    @Autochthon

    I'm waiting for them to extend it to the concept that any foreigner who's ever been to the US during her pregnancy is entitled to Gestationalright Citizenship by virtue of the American Beams radiated by our Magic Dirt.

    From there it can be extended in the finest traditions of massifying cibbil rites: if you've got eggs in the pouch or sperm in the sack, and fly over the US, even while orbiting on ISS, your spawn are Americans! They can call it Citizenship In The Bag.

    Me, Ima go edgy here in the Age of the Tranny. Citizenship for unfused gametes in used feminine hygiene products! I want to see an entire massive cadre of publicly funded, AFSCME-organized Democracy Support Specialists who will do their voting for them! (Dem, of course.)

    Coming soon--stains on blue dresses, and their rights to Medicare, comfort animals, and free college!

    , @colm
    @Autochthon

    "Well-settled laws" favoring foreign invaders should go into crappers, and those who did not live for more than 3 years in USA with a citizenship should not be allowed.

    That logic would also have finished off Mr. Bruce Lee, born in 1940 while his parents were touring America as troupes, and lived in Hong Kong for 17 years until he got into a local trouble and returned to the country of his citizenship.

    If America had been serious the port authority in SF would have taken Mr Lee's passport, and deport him back to HK where the people pursuing him would have finished him off.

  13. What about foreign born wives married to American men? Should their kids get citizenship?

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Anonymous

    What about foreign born wives married to American men? Should their kids get citizenship?

    For existing marriages, yes. But on the condition that all involved renounce or have removed any other citizenships.

    Going forward, we will need to give serious consideration to eliminating visas and citizenship for future foreign born spouses. Plenty of Americans to choose from.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    , @Daniel Chieh
    @Anonymous

    A lot of countries have citizenship dependent on one of the spouses having previous citizenship, so its a solved problem.

    , @The preferred nomenclature is...
    @Anonymous

    At this point in time NO.

    , @Hell_Is_Like_Newark
    @Anonymous

    This has already been addressed by Federal law: If at least on of the parents is a US citizen, the child is a US citizen, even if the birth is outside the United States or US territories.

    , @Truth
    @Anonymous

    Ask Derb.

  14. Eagle Eye says:

    It is quite possible to eliminate anchor-baby citizenship abuse WITHOUT changing the Constitution.

    As a matter of policy, birthright citizenship should be restricted to the children of U.S. citizens and of green card holders, perhaps subject to a minimum period of actual, physical residence in the U.S. accompanied by NET tax payments (after deduction of cash and non-cash benefits enjoyed by the green card holder and her family).

    Citizenship for children of U.S. citizens born overseas should also be reviewed. The strict regimes put in place by such countries as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland are instructive.

    The key phrase is part of the 14th Amendment:

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States …

    Although this is not 100% obvious from the wording, the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” as drafted at the time EXCLUDES citizens of other countries (who are “subject” to the jurisdiction of their home countries.)

    Congress can simply pass a new statute abolishing this putative right to citizenship for the off-spring of illegals and of temporary residents. With a solid Congressional mandate, a solid, restocked Supreme Court would not dare legislate such a statute out of existence.

    Proponents of the illegalizaiton of America like to refer to a footnote in an opinion by a solitary Supreme Court justice tried to gloss over the import of the “jurisdiction” qualification. Of course, this kind of sleight-of-hand makes a mockery of the dramatic legislative process that gave the Nation the 14th Amendment.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Eagle Eye

    As a matter of policy, birthright citizenship should be restricted to the children of U.S. citizens and of green card holders, perhaps subject to a minimum period of actual, physical residence in the U.S. accompanied by NET tax payments (after deduction of cash and non-cash benefits enjoyed by the green card holder and her family)

    It doesn't make sense to grant citizenship to the offspring of persons to whom citizenship is not granted.

    The key phrase is part of the 14th Amendment:

    The key word in that phrase is "are." And they key tense is present tense. In other words, it applied only to persons then living, an interpretation that brings it into perfect harmony with its purpose.

    , @anonymouslee
    @Eagle Eye

    it actually seems very obvious to this non-lawyer. How on earth little "timmy" Chang born to a PRC bigwigs wife on a birth tourism trip and now living back home in Beijing is subject to the jurisdiction of these united States is the crazy position.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    , @The preferred nomenclature is...
    @Eagle Eye

    Green Card holders shouldn't get birth right citizenship either. We need less foreign connected "citizens" not more.

  15. @wren
    Well, Trump has said a few things about it...

    Republican frontrunner Donald Trump doesn't believe babies born in the United States to undocumented immigrant parents are American citizens.

    "I don't think they have American citizenship and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers -- and I know some will disagree, but many of them agree with me -- and you're going to find they do not have American citizenship," Trump said Tuesday in an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly. "We have to start a process where we take back our country. Our country is going to hell."

    Birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."

    The real estate magnate, however, claims that those born on U.S. soil to illegal immigrants don't have full citizens' rights. "What happens is they're in Mexico, they're going to have a baby, they move over here for a couple of days, they have the baby," he told O'Reilly. Trump asserted, "Many lawyers are saying that's not the way it is in terms of this," and went on to say, "They are saying it is not going to hold up in court. It will have to be tested but they say it will not hold up in court."

    The GOP presidential hopeful does not, however, support amending the Constitution to repeal birthright citizenship, saying it would be a "long process."

    "I think it would take too long," he told Fox News. "I'd much rather find out whether or not anchor babies are citizens because a lot of people don't think they are. We're going to test it out."
     

    http://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/donald-trump-anchor-babies-arent-american-citizens/

    Replies: @Opinionator, @snorlax

    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it’s too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away).

    And there’s no way such an effort wouldn’t fail at the current Supreme Court.

    If Trump/successor appoints replacements for Ginsberg and Souter, then it might be worth a shot, assuming all the relative low-hanging fruit (wall, visas, deportations, legal immigration) has already been taken care of.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @snorlax

    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it’s too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away).


    I don't think you should write it off so easily. Deftly presented, it could be a huge political winner. Birth tourism, for one thing is very unpopular. For another thing, I sense that birthright citizenship to noncitizens has great potential to trigger in American women a strong competitive/protective instinct in favor of their own children and grandchildren and in opposition to outsider women trying to elbow into their nest. There's also just the basic injustice of rewarding lawbreakers.

    Replies: @snorlax

    , @Wilkey
    @snorlax

    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it’s too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away). And there’s no way such an effort wouldn’t fail at the current Supreme Court.

    And there's no way in hell, ever, that we could elect a president who spoke seriously about enforcing our borders or critically of illegals or Muslims. Never. Not in a million years.

    Birthright citizenship is one of the most ridiculous policies we have, and a huge percentage of Americans recognize its insanity on its face. I was talking about immigration with my siblings and their spouses at family dinner during the European refugee crisis. They are all Republican but, unlike me, they are good tolerant Mormons who have never been particularly vexed by our insanely high immigration rates. I explained to them that birthright citizenship meant that if a pregnant Canadian woman gave birth during a layover at LAX while flying to Brazil that her child would forever be treated as a US citizen. I'm talking about family members who actually voted for Egg McMuffin over Donald Trump. It actually bothered them. Trust me: if that concept bothers them, then it would bother enough people to make it a winning political issue.

    Raid these birth tourist homes and perp walk their vile operators on television. You can bet that most of them don't pay a fraction of what they owe in taxes.

    Replies: @Clyde

    , @ben tillman
    @snorlax


    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it’s too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away).
     
    I can't imagine how this could be in any way confusing to anyone.
    , @colm
    @snorlax

    Then so be it. Those who should not be citizens should not have citizenship, and 'millions of ordinary Americans' who might have to worry about their citizenship taken away are likely those who should not have had citizenship to begin with.

  16. @snorlax
    @wren

    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it's too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away).

    And there's no way such an effort wouldn't fail at the current Supreme Court.

    If Trump/successor appoints replacements for Ginsberg and Souter, then it might be worth a shot, assuming all the relative low-hanging fruit (wall, visas, deportations, legal immigration) has already been taken care of.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Wilkey, @ben tillman, @colm

    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it’s too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away).

    I don’t think you should write it off so easily. Deftly presented, it could be a huge political winner. Birth tourism, for one thing is very unpopular. For another thing, I sense that birthright citizenship to noncitizens has great potential to trigger in American women a strong competitive/protective instinct in favor of their own children and grandchildren and in opposition to outsider women trying to elbow into their nest. There’s also just the basic injustice of rewarding lawbreakers.

    • Replies: @snorlax
    @Opinionator

    The media, of "hacked the election," "Trump mocks disabled," etc fame, would deliberately paint the proposal as confusingly as possible, and do their best to leave the viewing public with the impression that the millions of ordinary Americans, who were born or adopted from overseas or to a non-citizen parent, would be stripped of their citizenship.

    It's also pretty poor optics in its own right: it lets the left and Quisling right very sanctimoniously wrap themselves in the Constitution, Lincoln, etc.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Opinionator, @bomag

  17. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    If foreigners come to US and have a child, the child has claim on US tax payers.

    But if an American goes abroad and gets someone pregnant, the child has no claim on US tax payers.

    Maybe we should change it around.

    That way, birth tourism will end, and America will encourage its men to behave better overseas cuz their kids with foreign women will cost US tax payers.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Anon

    But if an American goes abroad and gets someone pregnant, the child has no claim on US tax payers.

    I don't think this is true, but it should be.

    For the future, as we work to assimilate the people here and create a sense is unity, we should consider eliminating the visa for foreign spouses. Americans should be able to find a spouse from among our own population. Plenty of us.

    , @Under the Cone of Silence
    @Anon


    If foreigners come to US and have a child, the child has claim on US tax payers.
     
    Actually, you have that backwards. It should read:

    If foreigners come to US and have a child, the US tax payer has claim on that child.
     
    Just ask the IRS. Only make sure you are current with your 1040s before you do!

    Replies: @res

  18. @Eagle Eye
    It is quite possible to eliminate anchor-baby citizenship abuse WITHOUT changing the Constitution.

    As a matter of policy, birthright citizenship should be restricted to the children of U.S. citizens and of green card holders, perhaps subject to a minimum period of actual, physical residence in the U.S. accompanied by NET tax payments (after deduction of cash and non-cash benefits enjoyed by the green card holder and her family).

    Citizenship for children of U.S. citizens born overseas should also be reviewed. The strict regimes put in place by such countries as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland are instructive.

    The key phrase is part of the 14th Amendment:


    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...
     
    Although this is not 100% obvious from the wording, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as drafted at the time EXCLUDES citizens of other countries (who are "subject" to the jurisdiction of their home countries.)

    Congress can simply pass a new statute abolishing this putative right to citizenship for the off-spring of illegals and of temporary residents. With a solid Congressional mandate, a solid, restocked Supreme Court would not dare legislate such a statute out of existence.

    Proponents of the illegalizaiton of America like to refer to a footnote in an opinion by a solitary Supreme Court justice tried to gloss over the import of the "jurisdiction" qualification. Of course, this kind of sleight-of-hand makes a mockery of the dramatic legislative process that gave the Nation the 14th Amendment.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @anonymouslee, @The preferred nomenclature is...

    As a matter of policy, birthright citizenship should be restricted to the children of U.S. citizens and of green card holders, perhaps subject to a minimum period of actual, physical residence in the U.S. accompanied by NET tax payments (after deduction of cash and non-cash benefits enjoyed by the green card holder and her family)

    It doesn’t make sense to grant citizenship to the offspring of persons to whom citizenship is not granted.

    The key phrase is part of the 14th Amendment:

    The key word in that phrase is “are.” And they key tense is present tense. In other words, it applied only to persons then living, an interpretation that brings it into perfect harmony with its purpose.

  19. Not sure if I particularly care for you people, but I love what you’ve done with the place!

    • LOL: Kylie
  20. The people speak her language, but they are always judging and comparing, evaluating the clothes she wears, the home and neighborhood she lives in, the school her children will attend. A life in America is a break from all of that.

    “Here people are not so competitive, trying to wear better clothes and use better things,” Tracy said. “I don’t even have to wear makeup.” …

    This rings really true to me — but it’s only partly about America, and partly about the attitude towards America that you see peeking through here. Basically, that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. You don’t have to worry about doing the done thing. You can lounge around in sweatpants all day and eat pizza. You don’t have to call on people or host salons or parties or keep up with the latest trends and fashions. You don’t have to be civilised.

    Americans don’t actually see their society that way, for the most part, because they do care about keeping up appearances in their own way (especially in California). But to many foreigners, America is like the Raj. The barriers between classes are weaker than they would be at home: gentleman or tradesman, you’re all Chinese, or you’re all Korean, or whatever. So you have opportunities for social advancement you would never enjoy otherwise. And you can act however you like in front of the natives because they don’t count.

    • Replies: @Bleuteaux
    @Nanashi

    It's death by politeness in the US.

    Replies: @Kylie

    , @Kylie
    @Nanashi

    Yes, American citizens, quite apart from their treacherous government, are suicidally welcoming and credulous.

    , @Elsewhere
    @Nanashi

    It's funny. This is how I felt when I was in China. Although I knew it wasn't a free country for the natives, I felt free to reinvent myself or simply be myself and not worry about being judged.

  21. @Anon
    If foreigners come to US and have a child, the child has claim on US tax payers.

    But if an American goes abroad and gets someone pregnant, the child has no claim on US tax payers.

    Maybe we should change it around.

    That way, birth tourism will end, and America will encourage its men to behave better overseas cuz their kids with foreign women will cost US tax payers.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Under the Cone of Silence

    But if an American goes abroad and gets someone pregnant, the child has no claim on US tax payers.

    I don’t think this is true, but it should be.

    For the future, as we work to assimilate the people here and create a sense is unity, we should consider eliminating the visa for foreign spouses. Americans should be able to find a spouse from among our own population. Plenty of us.

  22. @Vinay
    Is this really worth fixing? From what I can tell
    A) it's a small fraction (couple of percent) of total annual immigration, and
    B) it's a fraction of the totally "legit" births to non-immigrants (tourist, students, guest workers etc.)

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there's a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Olorin, @donut, @wren, @bomag, @ben tillman, @anonguy, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @notsaying

    This is like saying “Don’t bother reclinkering the hull this winter because even the most snug hulls leak a little.”

    • Replies: @TWS
    @Olorin

    This is like saying don't focus on rechinking the hull because the stern has fallen off. Oh, and the mast has knocked a massive hole right through the decks. While we have millions of children being born to guys and gals from Chiapas and San Salvador this is just rechinking the hull. And now your anchor chain has dragged thousands of your crew into the water. But yeah, keep worrying about the fading paint.

  23. @Autochthon
    @Diversity Heretic

    Don't be silly; of course the children born on American soil to foreign diplomats and alien invaders expressly here in contempt and mockery of our systems are American citizens as much as those of us descended from founding stock. It's well settled law, and to even suggest otherwise is un-American and a violation of the invaders' basic civil rights under the penumbras of the Zeroth Amendment. Just ask congresswoman and renowned constitutional law expert Anna Eshoo (D – Assyria).

    Replies: @Olorin, @colm

    I’m waiting for them to extend it to the concept that any foreigner who’s ever been to the US during her pregnancy is entitled to Gestationalright Citizenship by virtue of the American Beams radiated by our Magic Dirt.

    From there it can be extended in the finest traditions of massifying cibbil rites: if you’ve got eggs in the pouch or sperm in the sack, and fly over the US, even while orbiting on ISS, your spawn are Americans! They can call it Citizenship In The Bag.

    Me, Ima go edgy here in the Age of the Tranny. Citizenship for unfused gametes in used feminine hygiene products! I want to see an entire massive cadre of publicly funded, AFSCME-organized Democracy Support Specialists who will do their voting for them! (Dem, of course.)

    Coming soon–stains on blue dresses, and their rights to Medicare, comfort animals, and free college!

  24. @Anonymous
    What about foreign born wives married to American men? Should their kids get citizenship?

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @Hell_Is_Like_Newark, @Truth

    What about foreign born wives married to American men? Should their kids get citizenship?

    For existing marriages, yes. But on the condition that all involved renounce or have removed any other citizenships.

    Going forward, we will need to give serious consideration to eliminating visas and citizenship for future foreign born spouses. Plenty of Americans to choose from.

    • Replies: @Wilkey
    @Opinionator

    Going forward, we will need to give serious consideration to eliminating visas and citizenship for future foreign born spouses.

    Most of the family members of Rizwan Farook, the San Bernardino terrorist, appear to have had foreign-born spouses. I would even wager that all of them did. Ergo every single one of them abused the immigration system to import a spouse.

    Allowing Americans to bring in their sweethearts was a great idea when they were actually marrying their sweethearts. It makes no sense to allow importation of spouses when these spouses are simply part of arranged marriages. Americans that practice arranged marriage can always choose an American-born partner. They seldom do so because the are using their American citizenship as a form of currency to obtain a spouse.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @anonguy

  25. @Vinay
    Is this really worth fixing? From what I can tell
    A) it's a small fraction (couple of percent) of total annual immigration, and
    B) it's a fraction of the totally "legit" births to non-immigrants (tourist, students, guest workers etc.)

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there's a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Olorin, @donut, @wren, @bomag, @ben tillman, @anonguy, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @notsaying

    I was born in the USA I don’t want to die in India , China , Mexico or Pakistan .

  26. @Opinionator
    @snorlax

    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it’s too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away).


    I don't think you should write it off so easily. Deftly presented, it could be a huge political winner. Birth tourism, for one thing is very unpopular. For another thing, I sense that birthright citizenship to noncitizens has great potential to trigger in American women a strong competitive/protective instinct in favor of their own children and grandchildren and in opposition to outsider women trying to elbow into their nest. There's also just the basic injustice of rewarding lawbreakers.

    Replies: @snorlax

    The media, of “hacked the election,” “Trump mocks disabled,” etc fame, would deliberately paint the proposal as confusingly as possible, and do their best to leave the viewing public with the impression that the millions of ordinary Americans, who were born or adopted from overseas or to a non-citizen parent, would be stripped of their citizenship.

    It’s also pretty poor optics in its own right: it lets the left and Quisling right very sanctimoniously wrap themselves in the Constitution, Lincoln, etc.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @snorlax

    Birthright citizenship does violence to the Constitution.

    , @Opinionator
    @snorlax

    Birthright citizenship actually does violence to the Constitution, betrays Lincoln, heck takes a benefit designed for blacks and gives it away to the rest of the world.

    Try it out on female friends and acquaintances. Tell them foreign women are coming here, many in violation of our laws, to give birth just so their offspring get US citizenship. Tell them that these offspring will have equal standing with their own children or even preferential standing due to U.S. laws. Mention the size of the US population, the size of the world population, and expected population growth in Africa or China or Latin America. Note the TFR for non-immigrant American women versus women in Africa or LatAm. Mention that when LatAm women move here their TFR goes up.

    Stand back and watch it all trigger a protective/competitive instinct with respect to their own actual or prospective children and grandchildren.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Autochthon

    , @bomag
    @snorlax


    It’s also pretty poor optics in its own right
     
    The other side is always able to rent a wheel chair and give us sobbing, screaming optics about impending maximum doom unless they get their way. We're going to have to resist this or go extinct.

    Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...

  27. @snorlax
    @Opinionator

    The media, of "hacked the election," "Trump mocks disabled," etc fame, would deliberately paint the proposal as confusingly as possible, and do their best to leave the viewing public with the impression that the millions of ordinary Americans, who were born or adopted from overseas or to a non-citizen parent, would be stripped of their citizenship.

    It's also pretty poor optics in its own right: it lets the left and Quisling right very sanctimoniously wrap themselves in the Constitution, Lincoln, etc.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Opinionator, @bomag

    Birthright citizenship does violence to the Constitution.

  28. @Vinay
    Is this really worth fixing? From what I can tell
    A) it's a small fraction (couple of percent) of total annual immigration, and
    B) it's a fraction of the totally "legit" births to non-immigrants (tourist, students, guest workers etc.)

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there's a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Olorin, @donut, @wren, @bomag, @ben tillman, @anonguy, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @notsaying

    I think births to illegal immigrants in the US account for eight or nine percent of total births.

    That compounds over the years.

    I wonder what percent of “legitimate” visas are given out to the family, and extended families of anchor babies.

    • Replies: @Vinay
    @wren

    "I think births to illegal immigrants in the US account for eight or nine percent of total births."

    Birth citizenship itself is undoubtedly significant but we're talking only about the "birth tourism" fraction of it. Obviously, getting rid of birth citizenship would also get rid of birth tourism but it's a much heavier lift.

    I'm actually kinda surprised that the US is such an outlier when it comes to birth citizenship. I doubt Western Europe is actually able to get rid of the children of "temporary workers" and such so I'm dubious it works out all that well in practice.

  29. @snorlax
    @Opinionator

    The media, of "hacked the election," "Trump mocks disabled," etc fame, would deliberately paint the proposal as confusingly as possible, and do their best to leave the viewing public with the impression that the millions of ordinary Americans, who were born or adopted from overseas or to a non-citizen parent, would be stripped of their citizenship.

    It's also pretty poor optics in its own right: it lets the left and Quisling right very sanctimoniously wrap themselves in the Constitution, Lincoln, etc.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Opinionator, @bomag

    Birthright citizenship actually does violence to the Constitution, betrays Lincoln, heck takes a benefit designed for blacks and gives it away to the rest of the world.

    Try it out on female friends and acquaintances. Tell them foreign women are coming here, many in violation of our laws, to give birth just so their offspring get US citizenship. Tell them that these offspring will have equal standing with their own children or even preferential standing due to U.S. laws. Mention the size of the US population, the size of the world population, and expected population growth in Africa or China or Latin America. Note the TFR for non-immigrant American women versus women in Africa or LatAm. Mention that when LatAm women move here their TFR goes up.

    Stand back and watch it all trigger a protective/competitive instinct with respect to their own actual or prospective children and grandchildren.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Opinionator

    Birthright citizenship to offspring of illegal immigrants and of Asian birth tourism is a betrayal of American blacks. It is the effective theft of their own birthright.

    , @Autochthon
    @Opinionator

    This idea makes perfect sense in the context of functional and adaptive bioevolutionary behaviour. However, your idea itself contains the hint of the trouble: total fertility rates among Americans v. among the invaders.*

    More and more American women (and women of the European diaspora at large) view conception and birth as tantamount to the contraction of HIV or a diagnosis of cancer. Thus, they are wholly unmoved by the incentives you discuss. This root psychopathy regarding reproduction is a huge part of the problem. Stabilised populations are wonderful; failure to reproduce at even replacement-rates is doom. Apathy and animosity toward reproduction has engendered an attitude of "Après moi, le deluge."

    *I call all these people what they are: invaders, not immigrants; I encourage others to adopt this more precise term as well. Language has power (cf. Orwell's Politics & The English Language, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, etc.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Opinionator

  30. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    It’s pure economics.
    It’s all about opportunity cost and leverage of an investment.
    Put bluntly, you can be pretty damned sure that no other initial money outlay on God’s green earth can possibly reap such rich dividends – not just in terms of pure hard cash – think of future welfare, education, university tuition, medicare and social security payments – but basically it means the full might of the US diplomatic corps, Pentagon and government behind you.

    The Chinese, as we all know, are a very very canny, hardheaded and smart people. They know a bargain when they see one.
    The only mystery is why MORE Chinese haven’t taken advantage. That’s something I can’t explain.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Anonymous

    Put bluntly, you can be pretty damned sure that no other initial money outlay on God’s green earth can possibly reap such rich dividends – not just in terms of pure hard cash – think of future welfare, education, university tuition, medicare and social security payments – but basically it means the full might of the US diplomatic corps, Pentagon and government behind you.

    Jewish campaign contributions in return for U.S. largesse to Israel surely reap bigger dividends. Sheldon Adelson's $25 million investment will yield a return of at least $38 BILLION over ten years.

  31. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Britain, up to 1983, had a system of jus solis, which was ancient in origin.

    In of the very very very few and far between actual intelligent acts done by UK governments, Mrs Thatcher’s government abolished it and replaced it with a jus sanguis type law.
    Without a doubt, this measure forestalled a truly mammoth subcontinental Indian wave of immigration – as it was intended to.
    No doubt shithead Tony Blair would never have done this.

    Incidentally, Germany, until recently, was strictly jus sanguis. Ethnic Germans 500 years removed from Germany had the absolute right of return. Turks born in Germany did not.

    • Agree: Opinionator
  32. I think it’s very naive to think that there won’t be a reaction to this soft-colonization effort. A similar sort of hubris to Hitler thinking that he could just colonize Russia, when the Russians were armed with tanks. Even the people in the countries who were wielding bows and arrows vs guns managed to eventually expel the colonizers in the case of Algeria and much of SSA.

    The round eye will not be always so gentle.

  33. @Eagle Eye
    It is quite possible to eliminate anchor-baby citizenship abuse WITHOUT changing the Constitution.

    As a matter of policy, birthright citizenship should be restricted to the children of U.S. citizens and of green card holders, perhaps subject to a minimum period of actual, physical residence in the U.S. accompanied by NET tax payments (after deduction of cash and non-cash benefits enjoyed by the green card holder and her family).

    Citizenship for children of U.S. citizens born overseas should also be reviewed. The strict regimes put in place by such countries as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland are instructive.

    The key phrase is part of the 14th Amendment:


    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...
     
    Although this is not 100% obvious from the wording, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as drafted at the time EXCLUDES citizens of other countries (who are "subject" to the jurisdiction of their home countries.)

    Congress can simply pass a new statute abolishing this putative right to citizenship for the off-spring of illegals and of temporary residents. With a solid Congressional mandate, a solid, restocked Supreme Court would not dare legislate such a statute out of existence.

    Proponents of the illegalizaiton of America like to refer to a footnote in an opinion by a solitary Supreme Court justice tried to gloss over the import of the "jurisdiction" qualification. Of course, this kind of sleight-of-hand makes a mockery of the dramatic legislative process that gave the Nation the 14th Amendment.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @anonymouslee, @The preferred nomenclature is...

    it actually seems very obvious to this non-lawyer. How on earth little “timmy” Chang born to a PRC bigwigs wife on a birth tourism trip and now living back home in Beijing is subject to the jurisdiction of these united States is the crazy position.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @anonymouslee

    You needn't get into that. The Court need only determine that the clause applied only to individuals living at the time of its enactment. (Note the present tense, "are"). A very plausible reading of the text that would match with its intended purpose.

  34. @Opinionator
    @snorlax

    Birthright citizenship actually does violence to the Constitution, betrays Lincoln, heck takes a benefit designed for blacks and gives it away to the rest of the world.

    Try it out on female friends and acquaintances. Tell them foreign women are coming here, many in violation of our laws, to give birth just so their offspring get US citizenship. Tell them that these offspring will have equal standing with their own children or even preferential standing due to U.S. laws. Mention the size of the US population, the size of the world population, and expected population growth in Africa or China or Latin America. Note the TFR for non-immigrant American women versus women in Africa or LatAm. Mention that when LatAm women move here their TFR goes up.

    Stand back and watch it all trigger a protective/competitive instinct with respect to their own actual or prospective children and grandchildren.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Autochthon

    Birthright citizenship to offspring of illegal immigrants and of Asian birth tourism is a betrayal of American blacks. It is the effective theft of their own birthright.

  35. @Anonymous
    It's pure economics.
    It's all about opportunity cost and leverage of an investment.
    Put bluntly, you can be pretty damned sure that no other initial money outlay on God's green earth can possibly reap such rich dividends - not just in terms of pure hard cash - think of future welfare, education, university tuition, medicare and social security payments - but basically it means the full might of the US diplomatic corps, Pentagon and government behind you.

    The Chinese, as we all know, are a very very canny, hardheaded and smart people. They know a bargain when they see one.
    The only mystery is why MORE Chinese haven't taken advantage. That's something I can't explain.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    Put bluntly, you can be pretty damned sure that no other initial money outlay on God’s green earth can possibly reap such rich dividends – not just in terms of pure hard cash – think of future welfare, education, university tuition, medicare and social security payments – but basically it means the full might of the US diplomatic corps, Pentagon and government behind you.

    Jewish campaign contributions in return for U.S. largesse to Israel surely reap bigger dividends. Sheldon Adelson’s $25 million investment will yield a return of at least $38 BILLION over ten years.

  36. @anonymouslee
    @Eagle Eye

    it actually seems very obvious to this non-lawyer. How on earth little "timmy" Chang born to a PRC bigwigs wife on a birth tourism trip and now living back home in Beijing is subject to the jurisdiction of these united States is the crazy position.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    You needn’t get into that. The Court need only determine that the clause applied only to individuals living at the time of its enactment. (Note the present tense, “are”). A very plausible reading of the text that would match with its intended purpose.

  37. I find it interesting that Charis Chang of news.com.au writes this sort of piece. I like it how they include her photograph and name on the article.

    http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/asking-silly-questions-as-part-of-a-tougher-citizenship-test-wont-help-australia-find-terrorists/news-story/d5691d45a5bf17f981b392d564ecfb13

  38. This birth tourism nonsense is part of the giant KICK ME sign on America’s butt,. I hope Trump is serious about removing the sign. It will take nerves, but Trump has nerves. Trump won’t make friends on the left either way, but if he does not get serious about stopping immigration and enforcing immigration law, his base is going to be mightily disappointed. We will soon tired of hearing about plants relocating in the US and bringing 2,000 jobs back here. I want illegals deported and nonsense like birth tourism and diversity lotteries ENDED.

    • Agree: Jim Don Bob
  39. Anonymous [AKA "B1b2"] says:

    A person applying for a tourist/business traveler visa (a B1/B2 visa) has to show that they are not intending to immigrate.

    Consular officers at our embassies and consulate are specifically instructed that birth tourism is NOT a reason to presume someone is an intending immigrant. Consular officers are trained that it is improper to deny a visa on that basis alone.

    This comment is strictly my own opinion.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Anonymous

    Seems like you are making an assertion of fact.

  40. @Anonymous
    But how do the mothers stay? Don't their visas run out? Do they just stay illegally indefinitely? How do they get by?

    Replies: @International Jew, @Travis

    They only need to stay long enough to give birth and obtain an American birth certificate. Then they can go home. But seventeen years later their child, as an American citizen, can come to America to study or work or whatever.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @International Jew

    The article says


    "there are home loans on offer, car rentals to go see the homes, real estate agents to guide shoppers and immigration attorneys to handle paperwork.

    Many mothers, like Tracy, consider staying. Her reasons have more to do with China’s flaws than U.S. freedoms.



    For the time being, they plan to stay."
     
    Somehow, they are parleying their birth tourism visit into permanent residence.

    My guess is that the aforementioned immigration attorneys get them extended visas or even green cards on the strength of the "citizenship" of their zero-year-old children.

    Replies: @Some Economist, @TWS, @Daniel Chieh

  41. Rowland Heights, along with Arcadia and Irvine, have long been plagued with rumors that the communities host “mistress villages” — a slang term in China to describe a housing complex where rich Chinese men house their mistresses.

    I knew some Chinese mistresses back in the day. Nice gals, and their boyfriends didn’t really care whether they played when they were away so long as they kept it discreet. Chinese are kind of like the French that way. If I were still a young single man, I really wouldn’t mind living near a mistress village.

  42. I think there should be free movement of people between all countries except subaharan African countries, carbibbean countries and muslim countries. So not “no borders” but “much fewer but also much better secured borders”

  43. @Nanashi

    The people speak her language, but they are always judging and comparing, evaluating the clothes she wears, the home and neighborhood she lives in, the school her children will attend. A life in America is a break from all of that.

    “Here people are not so competitive, trying to wear better clothes and use better things,” Tracy said. “I don’t even have to wear makeup.” …
     
    This rings really true to me -- but it's only partly about America, and partly about the attitude towards America that you see peeking through here. Basically, that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. You don't have to worry about doing the done thing. You can lounge around in sweatpants all day and eat pizza. You don't have to call on people or host salons or parties or keep up with the latest trends and fashions. You don't have to be civilised.

    Americans don't actually see their society that way, for the most part, because they do care about keeping up appearances in their own way (especially in California). But to many foreigners, America is like the Raj. The barriers between classes are weaker than they would be at home: gentleman or tradesman, you're all Chinese, or you're all Korean, or whatever. So you have opportunities for social advancement you would never enjoy otherwise. And you can act however you like in front of the natives because they don't count.

    Replies: @Bleuteaux, @Kylie, @Elsewhere

    It’s death by politeness in the US.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @Bleuteaux

    "It’s death by politeness in the US."

    Yes and kindness as weakness.

  44. 37 comments in, and I’ve not seen any mention of Ann Coulter wrt to this 14 Amendment question. (Yeah, she’s right there in the blogroll, over there …. there on the right).

    Now, if I may provide a link first Ann Coulter on Amendment 14. Thank you.

    We all know this lady is on our side, first of all. Many on here may not know that she has a law degree. Yes she is part of the 1% of lawyers that are doing their best to give the others a good name. Ann’s legal argument is somewhat beyond me – I’m sure I could get through it, but I’ll take her word for it. The link to VDare above has her legal precedents, arguments, etc.

  45. @Anonymous
    But how do the mothers stay? Don't their visas run out? Do they just stay illegally indefinitely? How do they get by?

    Replies: @International Jew, @Travis

    Good point…it is too easy for them to stay, as America has no enforcement mechanism for deporting those whip overstay their visas…all the foreigners know this, once they arrive on American soil with a visa they are basically legal residents and have zero risk of being deported. There are so many Chinese run businesses here in America, they can easily find work if they need to.

  46. @snorlax
    @wren

    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it's too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away).

    And there's no way such an effort wouldn't fail at the current Supreme Court.

    If Trump/successor appoints replacements for Ginsberg and Souter, then it might be worth a shot, assuming all the relative low-hanging fruit (wall, visas, deportations, legal immigration) has already been taken care of.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Wilkey, @ben tillman, @colm

    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it’s too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away). And there’s no way such an effort wouldn’t fail at the current Supreme Court.

    And there’s no way in hell, ever, that we could elect a president who spoke seriously about enforcing our borders or critically of illegals or Muslims. Never. Not in a million years.

    Birthright citizenship is one of the most ridiculous policies we have, and a huge percentage of Americans recognize its insanity on its face. I was talking about immigration with my siblings and their spouses at family dinner during the European refugee crisis. They are all Republican but, unlike me, they are good tolerant Mormons who have never been particularly vexed by our insanely high immigration rates. I explained to them that birthright citizenship meant that if a pregnant Canadian woman gave birth during a layover at LAX while flying to Brazil that her child would forever be treated as a US citizen. I’m talking about family members who actually voted for Egg McMuffin over Donald Trump. It actually bothered them. Trust me: if that concept bothers them, then it would bother enough people to make it a winning political issue.

    Raid these birth tourist homes and perp walk their vile operators on television. You can bet that most of them don’t pay a fraction of what they owe in taxes.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    @Wilkey

    I absolutely agree with you that Trump going after Chinese/Asian/etc birthright tourism would be an easy win. The American people would instantly understand and be in favor of this. Best of all it would educate the American people and get them ready for legislative nullification of all birthright citizenship via anchor babies. Then lead to lawsuits with a Trump stacked Supreme Court ruling against the 14th Amendment interpretations that lead to birthright citizenship

  47. America today has become America as it was in 1620: an America with lots of competing tribes who hate each other so much that they’d prefer siding with invaders rather than working out their differences with people who were basically family. And the Indian tribes of New England were a lot
    more closely related, culturally and genetically, to the other Indian tribes than the Scotch-Irish are to blacks, or even Jews.

    “Diversity” was not a strength for tribal Indians in 1620 and it is not our strength today. It has become that which will destroy us. An America not burdened with groups who would prefer to destroy each other (and let’s not kid ourselves that there are plenty of people who would prefer to see British Americans extinct) even if it took their country down with it.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri, ic1000
    • Replies: @Desiderius
    @Wilkey

    That's an apt comparison.

    "Hate" here meaning rivalry in the context of perceived dominance. Lessening it will require lessening that perception of dominance. Trump's willingness to see himself as a leader of one nation among many rather than an emperor over many nations could help with that. His humility, of all things, may be his enduring legacy.

  48. @Opinionator
    @Anonymous

    What about foreign born wives married to American men? Should their kids get citizenship?

    For existing marriages, yes. But on the condition that all involved renounce or have removed any other citizenships.

    Going forward, we will need to give serious consideration to eliminating visas and citizenship for future foreign born spouses. Plenty of Americans to choose from.

    Replies: @Wilkey

    Going forward, we will need to give serious consideration to eliminating visas and citizenship for future foreign born spouses.

    Most of the family members of Rizwan Farook, the San Bernardino terrorist, appear to have had foreign-born spouses. I would even wager that all of them did. Ergo every single one of them abused the immigration system to import a spouse.

    Allowing Americans to bring in their sweethearts was a great idea when they were actually marrying their sweethearts. It makes no sense to allow importation of spouses when these spouses are simply part of arranged marriages. Americans that practice arranged marriage can always choose an American-born partner. They seldom do so because the are using their American citizenship as a form of currency to obtain a spouse.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @Wilkey

    Subcontinental Indians are well known for doing this.
    This is why the British government has never, ever, been able to make the slightest success of controlling immigration from the subcontinent.

    , @anonguy
    @Wilkey


    Allowing Americans to bring in their sweethearts was a great idea when they were actually marrying their sweethearts.
     
    I've been wondering how same-sex marriages are trending on spouse visas.

    As an aside, when I went through the spouse visa deal 25 years ago, I asked the INS officer interviewing us how many cases she personally thought were fraudulent.

    She responded, "At least 80%", which completely blew me away. I figured she would say 10% or so.

    I felt comfortable asking since we were clearly not under any sort of suspicion.

  49. Am I the only one who sees a potential for the Chinese to be creating an espionage program from the U.S. Citizen Chinese who will be raised to be fully loyal to the PRC? Wouldn’t the pool of dual U.S. and Chinese citizens raised entirely in China be a promising pool from which to select and train spies?

    • Replies: @Abe
    @Alec Leamas


    Am I the only one who sees a potential for the Chinese to be creating an espionage program from the U.S. Citizen Chinese who will be raised to be fully loyal to the PRC?
     
    Whoa, whoa, whoa there, deplorable! The only categorically bad spies are those that work for Putin. How do you know some or all of these "spies" of Chinese background may not be undocumented double agents working for the US government? Or documented double agents? Or undocumented triple agents? Or documented quadruple agents? Or undocumented quintuple agents...
    , @colm
    @Alec Leamas

    People have forgotten the Tokyo Rose, an "American" who spent most of her life in Japan when the war broke. Incredibly, she was later allowed to reenter America!

  50. @International Jew
    @Anonymous

    They only need to stay long enough to give birth and obtain an American birth certificate. Then they can go home. But seventeen years later their child, as an American citizen, can come to America to study or work or whatever.

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    The article says

    “there are home loans on offer, car rentals to go see the homes, real estate agents to guide shoppers and immigration attorneys to handle paperwork.

    Many mothers, like Tracy, consider staying. Her reasons have more to do with China’s flaws than U.S. freedoms.

    For the time being, they plan to stay.”

    Somehow, they are parleying their birth tourism visit into permanent residence.

    My guess is that the aforementioned immigration attorneys get them extended visas or even green cards on the strength of the “citizenship” of their zero-year-old children.

    • Replies: @Some Economist
    @Almost Missouri

    What's the alternative? Tearing such families apart?!

    , @TWS
    @Almost Missouri

    Many states won't cover health care unless the women say they are staying permanently. Most I've seen are just lying through their teeth.

    , @Daniel Chieh
    @Almost Missouri

    As someone with some knowledge of this - most of them don't stay for what it is worth. The writer is going into a large ramble to make it sound like the US is helping unhappy people. Because instant gratification and happiness is the greatest virtue known to the liberal.

    They basically stay long enough to give birth and return to being mostly rootless citizens. Many of them, after all, are second wives or mistresses of the Chinese wealthy.

  51. Allowing Americans to bring in their sweethearts was a great idea when they were actually marrying their sweethearts. It makes no sense to allow importation of spouses when these spouses are simply part of arranged marriages. Americans that practice arranged marriage can always choose an American-born partner. They seldom do so because the are using their American citizenship as a form of currency to obtain a spouse.

    A prime vector for Pakistani Muslims flooding into the UK. The UK born Pakistani marries his-her arranged partner in Pakistan. Serious coin is paid by the Pakistani based family for this foothold in the UK to eventually bring in more family.
    So your thought they just lived off UK the welfare systems and running cash generating fish n chips shops! And being paid under the table when working at the Pakistani owned fish n chips shops when they are fresh off the boat.

  52. @Diversity Heretic
    The United States is just not a serious country anymore. This shouldn't even be a difficult issue--children born to foreign diplomats on U.S. "soil" are not American citizens, so why should children born to foreigners also on U.S. soil for the express purposes of gaming the system be automatic U.S. citizens? I'm reminded of the Tunisian terrorist who couldn't be deported because Tunisia wouldn't take him back (smart people, those Tunisians) but who couldn't be detained because, well, as I remember it, he didn't have any papers. The West is so tied up in legalisms it can no longer act to preserve its own existence. It's almost like being a body that's lost its ability to recognize disease organisms.

    Replies: @Autochthon, @Desiderius

    The United States is just not a serious country anymore.

    It is, but until Jan 20 it will be ruled by those who are not citizens of it alone, but principally citizens of the world, whose purported interests take precedence.

    As this is all implicit, it unfortunately often plays out as if subnational interests were paramount with the transnational as cover.

  53. @Wilkey
    @snorlax

    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it’s too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away). And there’s no way such an effort wouldn’t fail at the current Supreme Court.

    And there's no way in hell, ever, that we could elect a president who spoke seriously about enforcing our borders or critically of illegals or Muslims. Never. Not in a million years.

    Birthright citizenship is one of the most ridiculous policies we have, and a huge percentage of Americans recognize its insanity on its face. I was talking about immigration with my siblings and their spouses at family dinner during the European refugee crisis. They are all Republican but, unlike me, they are good tolerant Mormons who have never been particularly vexed by our insanely high immigration rates. I explained to them that birthright citizenship meant that if a pregnant Canadian woman gave birth during a layover at LAX while flying to Brazil that her child would forever be treated as a US citizen. I'm talking about family members who actually voted for Egg McMuffin over Donald Trump. It actually bothered them. Trust me: if that concept bothers them, then it would bother enough people to make it a winning political issue.

    Raid these birth tourist homes and perp walk their vile operators on television. You can bet that most of them don't pay a fraction of what they owe in taxes.

    Replies: @Clyde

    I absolutely agree with you that Trump going after Chinese/Asian/etc birthright tourism would be an easy win. The American people would instantly understand and be in favor of this. Best of all it would educate the American people and get them ready for legislative nullification of all birthright citizenship via anchor babies. Then lead to lawsuits with a Trump stacked Supreme Court ruling against the 14th Amendment interpretations that lead to birthright citizenship

  54. The UK (particularly England) has a huge population of illegal immigrants and has an open border with the much smaller Republic of Ireland. Ireland had a birthright citizenship clause written into its 1923 constitution, modelled on US practice. With little in-migration during the 1923-1990 period this clause was never a political issue. Then in the mid-1990s some of the individual ethnic communities in the UK (almost exclusively African in ethnicity, for some reason) realized that they (both adult female and attached male) could become legal EU residents by travelling across the open border to the Republic in the late stage of pregnancy and having a baby at Irish national health service expense. They were granted immediate Irish citizenship for the new baby and legal residency for the parents. The problem spiralled out of control (due to the relative size of the UK immigrant population relative to Ireland it was completely unsustainable) and the Irish overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment eliminating birthright citizenship.

  55. @Wilkey
    America today has become America as it was in 1620: an America with lots of competing tribes who hate each other so much that they'd prefer siding with invaders rather than working out their differences with people who were basically family. And the Indian tribes of New England were a lot
    more closely related, culturally and genetically, to the other Indian tribes than the Scotch-Irish are to blacks, or even Jews.

    "Diversity" was not a strength for tribal Indians in 1620 and it is not our strength today. It has become that which will destroy us. An America not burdened with groups who would prefer to destroy each other (and let's not kid ourselves that there are plenty of people who would prefer to see British Americans extinct) even if it took their country down with it.

    Replies: @Desiderius

    That’s an apt comparison.

    “Hate” here meaning rivalry in the context of perceived dominance. Lessening it will require lessening that perception of dominance. Trump’s willingness to see himself as a leader of one nation among many rather than an emperor over many nations could help with that. His humility, of all things, may be his enduring legacy.

  56. @whorefinder
    A great bamboozling idea the Left has foistered upon Americans in regards to immigration is that the stories you read in 6th Grade about little Irish and Jewish peasants coming through Ellis Island after months on a leaky, disease-encrusted boat in 1880 to escape pograms and famine and oppression and disease are exactly true and still apply today to everyone; that's how everyone comes over, don'tcha know?

    We need to update immigration imagery with major corrections, beyond the racial, religious, and cultural:

    Transportation makes immigration way, way different today. Outside of Cubans on boats fleeing Leftism in full force, people are either stepping off 21st century jets onto American soil or crawling across the border from a livable-lower-class country to take a job at half price and get their family on welfare or else to spend half the year back in their home country living like kings.

    This latter version---the "immigrants" not immigrating at all, but only doing part-year work to become fat and wealthy for the rest of the year at home---is something I seldom see told on the immigration patriot websites, but is a pretty good argument against open borders as well. They aren't here to become Americans, they're here to exploit the differences between first and third world pay---and take jobs from both Americans and actual immigrants. I know this is true because I have family members in blue-collar industries who have guys like this regularly working with them and bragging about it (Central Amercians).

    None are facing starvation, pograms, or famine.

    The Ellis Island stories do not apply.

    P.S. We should also point out that the Founding Fathers did not think immigration was immutable; this is why it is not part of the Constitution, other than who gets to direct the policy. That strongly implies that immigration policies should be fluid, on the fly, and change with the times.

    Ellis Island stories were fine to help those folks then. But the times have changed, such policies are not useful now.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @3g4me

    This latter version—the “immigrants” not immigrating at all, but only doing part-year work to become fat and wealthy for the rest of the year at home—is something I seldom see told on the immigration patriot websites, but is a pretty good argument against open borders as well

    This was actually very common in the late 19th century. Many immigrants assumed at some point they would go home to the old country and live like kings. Trump’s grandfather apparently would have moved back to Germany had the King of Bavaria not said no. My great-grandfather had always intended to move back to his Italian village, and had gone back and forth a few times in the decade before 1914. World War I put an end to that and forced German, Italian and Central European immigrants to assimilate. This part of the story is also ignored in immigration fairy tales. In the 19th century immigration created huge social issues in the US that mostly ended only when immigration slowed down dramatically in the early 20th century.

    • Replies: @Abe
    @Peter Akuleyev


    This part of the story is also ignored in immigration fairy tales. In the 19th century immigration created huge social issues in the US that mostly ended only when immigration slowed down dramatically in the early 20th century.
     
    The only movies that Hollywood seems to make these day (and which account for like 90% of profits once merchandising is factored) are superhero movies. And yet pretty much all of these (certainly Batman) have their origins in fears generated by the Ellis Island crime wave that really took off with Prohibition (wasn't Alphonse Capone a Dreamer once too?). So ignored, but right in our faces at the same time.
  57. @Vinay
    Is this really worth fixing? From what I can tell
    A) it's a small fraction (couple of percent) of total annual immigration, and
    B) it's a fraction of the totally "legit" births to non-immigrants (tourist, students, guest workers etc.)

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there's a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Olorin, @donut, @wren, @bomag, @ben tillman, @anonguy, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @notsaying

    Unless there’s a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    A stroke of the pen gave us birth tourism; a stroke of the pen would take it away.

    One is too many.

  58. Migrating to a vicious white supremacist hellscape where “minorities” live in fear of roving bands of TrumpenAbteilung???

  59. You know, Steve, what this blog/VDare needs is to find some actual birth tourists and interview them. Why are they desperate to get a pass out of Shanghai? Why the US instead of buying their way into Singapore? Etc. Derbyshire speaks Chinese, right? And you must have some other people who could translate. That shit could go viral if edited correctly.

  60. @Opinionator
    @snorlax

    Birthright citizenship actually does violence to the Constitution, betrays Lincoln, heck takes a benefit designed for blacks and gives it away to the rest of the world.

    Try it out on female friends and acquaintances. Tell them foreign women are coming here, many in violation of our laws, to give birth just so their offspring get US citizenship. Tell them that these offspring will have equal standing with their own children or even preferential standing due to U.S. laws. Mention the size of the US population, the size of the world population, and expected population growth in Africa or China or Latin America. Note the TFR for non-immigrant American women versus women in Africa or LatAm. Mention that when LatAm women move here their TFR goes up.

    Stand back and watch it all trigger a protective/competitive instinct with respect to their own actual or prospective children and grandchildren.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Autochthon

    This idea makes perfect sense in the context of functional and adaptive bioevolutionary behaviour. However, your idea itself contains the hint of the trouble: total fertility rates among Americans v. among the invaders.*

    More and more American women (and women of the European diaspora at large) view conception and birth as tantamount to the contraction of HIV or a diagnosis of cancer. Thus, they are wholly unmoved by the incentives you discuss. This root psychopathy regarding reproduction is a huge part of the problem. Stabilised populations are wonderful; failure to reproduce at even replacement-rates is doom. Apathy and animosity toward reproduction has engendered an attitude of “Après moi, le deluge.”

    *I call all these people what they are: invaders, not immigrants; I encourage others to adopt this more precise term as well. Language has power (cf. Orwell’s Politics & The English Language, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, etc.

    • Replies: @Kylie
    @Autochthon

    "*I call all these people what they are: invaders, not immigrants; I encourage others to adopt this more precise term as well. "

    Good point. And we shouldn't let anyone get away with conflating American citizens with American residents by saying "Americans" when they mean simply anyone who lives in America.

    I notice leftists do this constantly when lamenting "rising inequality". Sure there's rising inequality--we're letting in a bunch of low income or no income foreigners!

    I would love to see an end to dual citizenship and to birthright citizenship unless both parents are American citizens.

    Replies: @Karlub, @Grace Jones

    , @Opinionator
    @Autochthon

    More and more American women (and women of the European diaspora at large) view conception and birth as tantamount to the contraction of HIV or a diagnosis of cancer. Thus, they are wholly unmoved by the incentives you discuss.

    This doesn't follow. First, you are referring to their choosing to have children while I am referring to their opposing foreign women having many babies in their habitat. Second, women today are only barely exposed to the kind of presentation of the world that I have suggested making in this context. I posited that birth tourism (and, probably, birthright to more fertile--use that phrase--illegal alien females) are triggers that awaken our women's competitive and protective instincts. Try it on a few women (including one of grandmother age) and report back. Whichever of us is wrong sends a $50 donation to Steve.

    failure to reproduce at even replacement-rates is doom.

    Not necessarily. Not if borders are maintained. Our habitats in North America and Europe are overpopulated.

    Replies: @Autochthon

  61. @snorlax
    @Opinionator

    The media, of "hacked the election," "Trump mocks disabled," etc fame, would deliberately paint the proposal as confusingly as possible, and do their best to leave the viewing public with the impression that the millions of ordinary Americans, who were born or adopted from overseas or to a non-citizen parent, would be stripped of their citizenship.

    It's also pretty poor optics in its own right: it lets the left and Quisling right very sanctimoniously wrap themselves in the Constitution, Lincoln, etc.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Opinionator, @bomag

    It’s also pretty poor optics in its own right

    The other side is always able to rent a wheel chair and give us sobbing, screaming optics about impending maximum doom unless they get their way. We’re going to have to resist this or go extinct.

    • Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...
    @bomag

    If a leftist doesn't consider me a cold hearted evil bastard anti-fill in the blank on a daily basis I am failing my children miserably.

  62. @Wilkey
    @Opinionator

    Going forward, we will need to give serious consideration to eliminating visas and citizenship for future foreign born spouses.

    Most of the family members of Rizwan Farook, the San Bernardino terrorist, appear to have had foreign-born spouses. I would even wager that all of them did. Ergo every single one of them abused the immigration system to import a spouse.

    Allowing Americans to bring in their sweethearts was a great idea when they were actually marrying their sweethearts. It makes no sense to allow importation of spouses when these spouses are simply part of arranged marriages. Americans that practice arranged marriage can always choose an American-born partner. They seldom do so because the are using their American citizenship as a form of currency to obtain a spouse.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @anonguy

    Subcontinental Indians are well known for doing this.
    This is why the British government has never, ever, been able to make the slightest success of controlling immigration from the subcontinent.

  63. @Almost Missouri
    @International Jew

    The article says


    "there are home loans on offer, car rentals to go see the homes, real estate agents to guide shoppers and immigration attorneys to handle paperwork.

    Many mothers, like Tracy, consider staying. Her reasons have more to do with China’s flaws than U.S. freedoms.



    For the time being, they plan to stay."
     
    Somehow, they are parleying their birth tourism visit into permanent residence.

    My guess is that the aforementioned immigration attorneys get them extended visas or even green cards on the strength of the "citizenship" of their zero-year-old children.

    Replies: @Some Economist, @TWS, @Daniel Chieh

    What’s the alternative? Tearing such families apart?!

  64. @wren
    @Vinay

    I think births to illegal immigrants in the US account for eight or nine percent of total births.

    That compounds over the years.

    I wonder what percent of "legitimate" visas are given out to the family, and extended families of anchor babies.

    Replies: @Vinay

    “I think births to illegal immigrants in the US account for eight or nine percent of total births.”

    Birth citizenship itself is undoubtedly significant but we’re talking only about the “birth tourism” fraction of it. Obviously, getting rid of birth citizenship would also get rid of birth tourism but it’s a much heavier lift.

    I’m actually kinda surprised that the US is such an outlier when it comes to birth citizenship. I doubt Western Europe is actually able to get rid of the children of “temporary workers” and such so I’m dubious it works out all that well in practice.

  65. @Vinay
    Is this really worth fixing? From what I can tell
    A) it's a small fraction (couple of percent) of total annual immigration, and
    B) it's a fraction of the totally "legit" births to non-immigrants (tourist, students, guest workers etc.)

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there's a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Olorin, @donut, @wren, @bomag, @ben tillman, @anonguy, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @notsaying

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there’s a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    There is no “immigration-restrictionist buck”. Immigration restriction turns a profit.

  66. @Vinay
    Is this really worth fixing? From what I can tell
    A) it's a small fraction (couple of percent) of total annual immigration, and
    B) it's a fraction of the totally "legit" births to non-immigrants (tourist, students, guest workers etc.)

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there's a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Olorin, @donut, @wren, @bomag, @ben tillman, @anonguy, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @notsaying

    Is this really worth fixing? From what I can tell
    A) it’s a small fraction (couple of percent) of total annual immigration, and
    B) it’s a fraction of the totally “legit” births to non-immigrants (tourist, students, guest workers etc.)

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there’s a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    Dimes make dollars

  67. @Anonymous
    What about foreign born wives married to American men? Should their kids get citizenship?

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @Hell_Is_Like_Newark, @Truth

    A lot of countries have citizenship dependent on one of the spouses having previous citizenship, so its a solved problem.

  68. @Vinay
    Is this really worth fixing? From what I can tell
    A) it's a small fraction (couple of percent) of total annual immigration, and
    B) it's a fraction of the totally "legit" births to non-immigrants (tourist, students, guest workers etc.)

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there's a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Olorin, @donut, @wren, @bomag, @ben tillman, @anonguy, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @notsaying

    I’m a little dubious but it is a pretty evident issue of the Chinese gaming the system, something that we’re reknown for. I do think that we should do something about it. Not to mention, as it is now, we’re pretty much rewarding the exact corrupt people that President Xi is trying to stop.

    Quite literally, its like he’s stopping their stupidity in China, and they just go somewhere else to reboot it anew. Is this really the kind of people you would like to welcome?

    I mean, its not like these people are even intending to truly be American in any way. They’re literally just making sure that their children collect a citizenship. While its a brilliant scam, and the US is probably profiting from it, its hard to justify how this makes any moral sense.

  69. Is there a birth tourism center near you, Steve? Why is this yarding your chain so hard? For goodness sake I live in a town with more illegal gang members than the moneyed pregnant Chinese you deal with.

    Why worry about the law abiding drops in a bucket while your fellow citizens are literally dealing with MS13, Guatemalan death squad members and hard core drug dealing criminals? Sure it annoys you because it is a minor monetizing of a mildly illegal action but you’ll meet with more official opposition to parking in the wrong place than a few Chinese women who are spending your tax dollars and that is exactly the same resistance you’ll see you actual, real criminal illegals like the murderous gang members I see every day.

    You worry about Yao Ming’s mom because it spends some of the college money you’ve paid to California. I’ll worry about the guy who attacked my pregnant daughter whose already back in town and the guy who murdered a girl my daughter grew up with and the drug dealing gang banger who has had eight children with five women in the last twelve years. You’re worrying about a hang nail while your arm has been ripped half off.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    @TWS

    TWS, you've got to understand Steve Sailer. "The man's a phenomenon!" [/Dennis Hopper - Apocalypse Now]. Steve will get on a roll with some subject and really get into detail, while, yes there are other things going on around us. (Sometimes it's about football or movies, and I couldn't give an RA about it, but you don't have to read it).

    In his support regarding this post, it's not like he ignores the Hispanic aspect of this subject - he lives in LA, right? Also, VDare covers the crap out of everything immigration-related, so he's got 10-20 others writing on this subject too.

    OK, seeing if I can embed youtube here. Forgive me moderator if it's not allowed - just let me know.

    I'm like Dennis Hopper here, man, and Sailer is like Colonel Kurtz:

    OK no embedding, which is understandable - here's the scene (from 3:20 - 4:10):

    HERE

    , @anon
    @TWS

    Yes, but the Mexicans are coming in less than the Chinese now. In fact Mexico's birth rate is now at 2.0 and probably 1.5 by 2025 while the Chinese pour into Orange County now twice the rate of the Latinos. OC went from only 15 percent Asian in 2008 to 20 percent currently during to the US census. Santa Ana is less of the threat in some ways than Irvine which has pushed housing in the OC to 660,000 since the rich Chinese buy also in Newport Beach.

  70. Why are cities always vibrant, and suburbs always sprawling?

  71. @Almost Missouri
    @International Jew

    The article says


    "there are home loans on offer, car rentals to go see the homes, real estate agents to guide shoppers and immigration attorneys to handle paperwork.

    Many mothers, like Tracy, consider staying. Her reasons have more to do with China’s flaws than U.S. freedoms.



    For the time being, they plan to stay."
     
    Somehow, they are parleying their birth tourism visit into permanent residence.

    My guess is that the aforementioned immigration attorneys get them extended visas or even green cards on the strength of the "citizenship" of their zero-year-old children.

    Replies: @Some Economist, @TWS, @Daniel Chieh

    Many states won’t cover health care unless the women say they are staying permanently. Most I’ve seen are just lying through their teeth.

  72. @Almost Missouri
    @International Jew

    The article says


    "there are home loans on offer, car rentals to go see the homes, real estate agents to guide shoppers and immigration attorneys to handle paperwork.

    Many mothers, like Tracy, consider staying. Her reasons have more to do with China’s flaws than U.S. freedoms.



    For the time being, they plan to stay."
     
    Somehow, they are parleying their birth tourism visit into permanent residence.

    My guess is that the aforementioned immigration attorneys get them extended visas or even green cards on the strength of the "citizenship" of their zero-year-old children.

    Replies: @Some Economist, @TWS, @Daniel Chieh

    As someone with some knowledge of this – most of them don’t stay for what it is worth. The writer is going into a large ramble to make it sound like the US is helping unhappy people. Because instant gratification and happiness is the greatest virtue known to the liberal.

    They basically stay long enough to give birth and return to being mostly rootless citizens. Many of them, after all, are second wives or mistresses of the Chinese wealthy.

  73. @Wilkey
    @Opinionator

    Going forward, we will need to give serious consideration to eliminating visas and citizenship for future foreign born spouses.

    Most of the family members of Rizwan Farook, the San Bernardino terrorist, appear to have had foreign-born spouses. I would even wager that all of them did. Ergo every single one of them abused the immigration system to import a spouse.

    Allowing Americans to bring in their sweethearts was a great idea when they were actually marrying their sweethearts. It makes no sense to allow importation of spouses when these spouses are simply part of arranged marriages. Americans that practice arranged marriage can always choose an American-born partner. They seldom do so because the are using their American citizenship as a form of currency to obtain a spouse.

    Replies: @Anonymous, @anonguy

    Allowing Americans to bring in their sweethearts was a great idea when they were actually marrying their sweethearts.

    I’ve been wondering how same-sex marriages are trending on spouse visas.

    As an aside, when I went through the spouse visa deal 25 years ago, I asked the INS officer interviewing us how many cases she personally thought were fraudulent.

    She responded, “At least 80%”, which completely blew me away. I figured she would say 10% or so.

    I felt comfortable asking since we were clearly not under any sort of suspicion.

  74. @Olorin
    @Vinay

    This is like saying "Don't bother reclinkering the hull this winter because even the most snug hulls leak a little."

    Replies: @TWS

    This is like saying don’t focus on rechinking the hull because the stern has fallen off. Oh, and the mast has knocked a massive hole right through the decks. While we have millions of children being born to guys and gals from Chiapas and San Salvador this is just rechinking the hull. And now your anchor chain has dragged thousands of your crew into the water. But yeah, keep worrying about the fading paint.

  75. The concept of birth tourism is directly opposed by the SCOTUS case Wong Kim Ark (1898)

    The Wong Kim Ark (WKA) case is often cited as the essential legal reasoning for application of the fourteenth amendment as applied to aliens. However, the narrow application of the case is emphasized reviewing a concise statement of the question the case was meant to decide, written by Hon. Horace Gray, Justice for the majority in this decision.

    “[W]hether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.” (Italics added.)

    Justice Gray clearly means that the children of legal immigrants have a claim to citizenship, and even provides two tests: “…permanent domicile…” and “…carrying on business…” .

    A quick visit in order to give birth on American soil answers neither condition. WKA is therefore disqualified as justification for a “birth tourism” child to be granted birthright citizenship.

  76. @Vinay
    Is this really worth fixing? From what I can tell
    A) it's a small fraction (couple of percent) of total annual immigration, and
    B) it's a fraction of the totally "legit" births to non-immigrants (tourist, students, guest workers etc.)

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there's a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Olorin, @donut, @wren, @bomag, @ben tillman, @anonguy, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @notsaying

    Yes there is a quick fix. Don’t give citizenship to foreign babies just because they are born on U.S. soil!

    Freakin’ troll.

  77. the article mentions Arcadia. this is the second time in 2 days that town came to my mid-american attention. The first was when i was watching the rose parade Monday and their HS marching band came on. I didn’t see a white face in the hundreds of marchers and no blacks either. Maybe a few who could be either mestizos or Filipinos. What that and this article says it this invasion is very advanced and these birth hotels are a lagging indicator. First came the male trailblazers(h-1b instead of mountain men), then the families(747s instead of Conestogas), then the opportunists, to mix my frontier analogy with a civil war one, we are well into the carpetbagger phase.

  78. @Anon
    If foreigners come to US and have a child, the child has claim on US tax payers.

    But if an American goes abroad and gets someone pregnant, the child has no claim on US tax payers.

    Maybe we should change it around.

    That way, birth tourism will end, and America will encourage its men to behave better overseas cuz their kids with foreign women will cost US tax payers.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Under the Cone of Silence

    If foreigners come to US and have a child, the child has claim on US tax payers.

    Actually, you have that backwards. It should read:

    If foreigners come to US and have a child, the US tax payer has claim on that child.

    Just ask the IRS. Only make sure you are current with your 1040s before you do!

    • Replies: @res
    @Under the Cone of Silence


    If foreigners come to US and have a child, the US tax payer has claim on that child.
     
    Has birth tourism been around long enough to get a sense of how this is working in practice? I know the IRS is aggressive with Americans overseas in the general case, but not sure about this specific case.

    I would think wealthy Chinese would be particularly concerned about this aspect of US citizenship.

    Replies: @Opinionator

  79. This post raised a question that for me is really interesting, which Steve tried to answer but the earlier 44 comments have ignored.

    Wtf is going on in China?

    I know people who have lived in China and currently have a friend living there now. By all accounts, life there is generally better now than in the US (or at least in the big coastal cities). The place is wealthier, has more advanced infrastructure, and there is actually less surveillance.

    But lots of Chinese are desperate to get out. From some of the accounts I’ve read, high ranking Communist Party types and their families seem to predominate in this crowd.

    So what is happening in China that we are not being told about?

    The financial aid explanation is a nice try, but though admittedly their reputation is inflated, I don’t think American universities are THAT good.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @eD

    You should know what's going on if you have a friend there. President Xi's cutdown on corruption has hit a lot of people, especially those in the Party. China doesn't pay its statesmen very well - they've never learned from Singapore. Along with the guanxi system, this meant that corruption was the main means of profit because after all, gotta get that mianzi.

    Well, now the system has decided that this isn't acceptable anymore, and out flee the rats. This is the last chance for them to launder their money too, so they're eager to pour capital outside in any way possible.

    Based on Weibo, though, many Chinese would-be expats have a seriously warped view on the US. This includes: beautiful women are everywhere wearing thongs in public, you can organize against the government and form an uprising if you feel upset with any policy, and other nonsense. They would be surprised to find that they have less freedom to hire people thanks to civil rights law here, than in China.

    Some were really surprised when I told them that a NSA monitors them and all you can do is form political parties, really. And usually you just have to sign up to one of the existing ones, and hope for the best.

    , @res
    @eD


    So what is happening in China that we are not being told about?
     
    One explanation is the harsh penalties for corruption (i.e. people trying to secure their ill gotten gains). Not sure how important this is overall and what other factors there are.
    , @bomag
    @eD


    But lots of Chinese are desperate to get out.
     
    They are desperate to get in on the looting as America gives itself away.

    There is a pernicious meme out there that other countries all suck and the only way to fix them is to move all their people to the US.

    Every immigrant with whom I've interacted gets around to lecturing me about how great is their old country, and I can thank them later when they've expanded the brand and re-created their old country.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    , @verylongaccountname
    @eD

    I'm curious about this too. I don't imagine that tuition discounts are really that big of a deal for the foreign students I see around near the UC campuses. A lot of the foreign Chinese students are driving around in expensive cars (not mercedes or BMWS, but really expensive cars like bentleys, ferraris, masseratis, lamborginis and the like). I can't imagine that someone who buys a 300K car for their kid really cares that much about tuition money ...

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    , @Faraday's Bobcat
    @eD

    Birth tourism doesn't imply there's anything wrong in China. The US born Chinese kids are still just as Chinese as if they were born in China. They aren't giving up anything but the cost of the birth tour. Hell, they probably don't even pay their doctor bill. Doctors write off bills for people a lot easier to track down than someone who went back to China a week after birth.

  80. @whorefinder
    A great bamboozling idea the Left has foistered upon Americans in regards to immigration is that the stories you read in 6th Grade about little Irish and Jewish peasants coming through Ellis Island after months on a leaky, disease-encrusted boat in 1880 to escape pograms and famine and oppression and disease are exactly true and still apply today to everyone; that's how everyone comes over, don'tcha know?

    We need to update immigration imagery with major corrections, beyond the racial, religious, and cultural:

    Transportation makes immigration way, way different today. Outside of Cubans on boats fleeing Leftism in full force, people are either stepping off 21st century jets onto American soil or crawling across the border from a livable-lower-class country to take a job at half price and get their family on welfare or else to spend half the year back in their home country living like kings.

    This latter version---the "immigrants" not immigrating at all, but only doing part-year work to become fat and wealthy for the rest of the year at home---is something I seldom see told on the immigration patriot websites, but is a pretty good argument against open borders as well. They aren't here to become Americans, they're here to exploit the differences between first and third world pay---and take jobs from both Americans and actual immigrants. I know this is true because I have family members in blue-collar industries who have guys like this regularly working with them and bragging about it (Central Amercians).

    None are facing starvation, pograms, or famine.

    The Ellis Island stories do not apply.

    P.S. We should also point out that the Founding Fathers did not think immigration was immutable; this is why it is not part of the Constitution, other than who gets to direct the policy. That strongly implies that immigration policies should be fluid, on the fly, and change with the times.

    Ellis Island stories were fine to help those folks then. But the times have changed, such policies are not useful now.

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @3g4me

    The “left” didn’t foist the Ellis Island narrative on Americans; the Ellis Island (((immigrants and their descendants))) created and maintain the entire narrative. The first thing any immigrant in America desires is more of his own people.

    The “melting pot” myth and meme was created by Israel Zangwill, an (((immigrant))) in England. The zeroth amendment was created by another (((immigrant’s))) poem attached to France’s gift of “Liberty Raising Her Torch.” When there was no welfare, half of all immigrants returned to their native lands because they couldn’t survive in America. When the host population maintained a strong confidence in the superiority of its language and culture and traditions, the immigrants were forced (to greater and lesser degrees) to at least superficially assimilate. Of course, (((immigrants))) in New York forced the removal of the very word “Christmas” from all New York public school textbooks and song books in 1906, but hey, (((they))) and (((their descendants))), now all constitutional scholars, tell everyone what the Founders REALLY meant by “our posterity.”

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @3g4me

    The zeroth amendment was created by another (((immigrant’s))) poem attached to France’s gift of “Liberty Raising Her Torch.”

    Emma Lazarus was not an immigrant, she was from a sephardic Portugeese family that has been in the US since before it was founded. There's even a Portugeese synagogue in New York that was founded in 1654.

    I suspect your history in this country isn't nearly as deep as hers

    This kind of content free altright virtue signaling should stay on therighstuff.biz

  81. @Anonymous
    What about foreign born wives married to American men? Should their kids get citizenship?

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @Hell_Is_Like_Newark, @Truth

    At this point in time NO.

  82. @Eagle Eye
    It is quite possible to eliminate anchor-baby citizenship abuse WITHOUT changing the Constitution.

    As a matter of policy, birthright citizenship should be restricted to the children of U.S. citizens and of green card holders, perhaps subject to a minimum period of actual, physical residence in the U.S. accompanied by NET tax payments (after deduction of cash and non-cash benefits enjoyed by the green card holder and her family).

    Citizenship for children of U.S. citizens born overseas should also be reviewed. The strict regimes put in place by such countries as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Ireland are instructive.

    The key phrase is part of the 14th Amendment:


    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States ...
     
    Although this is not 100% obvious from the wording, the phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as drafted at the time EXCLUDES citizens of other countries (who are "subject" to the jurisdiction of their home countries.)

    Congress can simply pass a new statute abolishing this putative right to citizenship for the off-spring of illegals and of temporary residents. With a solid Congressional mandate, a solid, restocked Supreme Court would not dare legislate such a statute out of existence.

    Proponents of the illegalizaiton of America like to refer to a footnote in an opinion by a solitary Supreme Court justice tried to gloss over the import of the "jurisdiction" qualification. Of course, this kind of sleight-of-hand makes a mockery of the dramatic legislative process that gave the Nation the 14th Amendment.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @anonymouslee, @The preferred nomenclature is...

    Green Card holders shouldn’t get birth right citizenship either. We need less foreign connected “citizens” not more.

  83. But lots of Chinese are desperate to get out.

    Maybe it is just lagging perceptions on their part, just a tradition at this point. Or maybe the foul environment, bad air, etc, which creates problems not just in China, but in surrounding countries, it is so bad.

    The interesting part to me is I find many Chinese who emigrate remain quite chauvinistic about China being superior to the US. The other interesting part is while so many are trying to get out, so many non-Chinese, while not immigrating to China, are very interested in living there. Among the younger smart set, it is very hip and cool to be an expat in China. That doesn’t usually happen with places that are hellholes with residents desperate to escape.

    OTOH, there are few demographics larger than being Chinese, so even if a million or so Chinese emigrate per year, for every emigrant, there are over a thousand who remain. So even if it looks like hordes of Chinese want to escape, it very well may be a vanishingly small minority sentiment among Chinese in China.

    Somewhat OT: Chinese tourists seem quite unpopular in Japan, FWIW, it isn’t at all like when Japanese tourists were first swamping Hawaii in the 80s, where despite the carping, most residents seemed to feel that the Japanese tourists were basically good Joes if a bit odd at times.

    Google new chitose airport chinese riot and read some of the comments by Japanese nationals.

    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    @anonguy

    The Japanese and the Chinese are working through some long-running hate. There's a lot of hilarity and amusement involved - for example, one of the objections that the ultranationalist Japanese have of the Chinese is that the Chinese are not Confucian enough. Evidently the far-right maintains that they keep the "pure" form while China debased it with Neoconfucianism and later, of course, the Cultural Revolution.

    One could argue that they are fundamentally wrong by definition since the great-descendants of Confucius are well known, and there are those who argue to restore a form of government where they maintain a hereditary position. Wouldn't they, by definition, define what is actually pure Confucianism then?

    Not people far away on an island.

  84. @Anonymous
    A person applying for a tourist/business traveler visa (a B1/B2 visa) has to show that they are not intending to immigrate.

    Consular officers at our embassies and consulate are specifically instructed that birth tourism is NOT a reason to presume someone is an intending immigrant. Consular officers are trained that it is improper to deny a visa on that basis alone.

    This comment is strictly my own opinion.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    Seems like you are making an assertion of fact.

  85. @eD
    This post raised a question that for me is really interesting, which Steve tried to answer but the earlier 44 comments have ignored.

    Wtf is going on in China?

    I know people who have lived in China and currently have a friend living there now. By all accounts, life there is generally better now than in the US (or at least in the big coastal cities). The place is wealthier, has more advanced infrastructure, and there is actually less surveillance.

    But lots of Chinese are desperate to get out. From some of the accounts I've read, high ranking Communist Party types and their families seem to predominate in this crowd.

    So what is happening in China that we are not being told about?

    The financial aid explanation is a nice try, but though admittedly their reputation is inflated, I don't think American universities are THAT good.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @res, @bomag, @verylongaccountname, @Faraday's Bobcat

    You should know what’s going on if you have a friend there. President Xi’s cutdown on corruption has hit a lot of people, especially those in the Party. China doesn’t pay its statesmen very well – they’ve never learned from Singapore. Along with the guanxi system, this meant that corruption was the main means of profit because after all, gotta get that mianzi.

    Well, now the system has decided that this isn’t acceptable anymore, and out flee the rats. This is the last chance for them to launder their money too, so they’re eager to pour capital outside in any way possible.

    Based on Weibo, though, many Chinese would-be expats have a seriously warped view on the US. This includes: beautiful women are everywhere wearing thongs in public, you can organize against the government and form an uprising if you feel upset with any policy, and other nonsense. They would be surprised to find that they have less freedom to hire people thanks to civil rights law here, than in China.

    Some were really surprised when I told them that a NSA monitors them and all you can do is form political parties, really. And usually you just have to sign up to one of the existing ones, and hope for the best.

  86. @Under the Cone of Silence
    @Anon


    If foreigners come to US and have a child, the child has claim on US tax payers.
     
    Actually, you have that backwards. It should read:

    If foreigners come to US and have a child, the US tax payer has claim on that child.
     
    Just ask the IRS. Only make sure you are current with your 1040s before you do!

    Replies: @res

    If foreigners come to US and have a child, the US tax payer has claim on that child.

    Has birth tourism been around long enough to get a sense of how this is working in practice? I know the IRS is aggressive with Americans overseas in the general case, but not sure about this specific case.

    I would think wealthy Chinese would be particularly concerned about this aspect of US citizenship.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @res

    How would the IRS ever find out?

  87. @eD
    This post raised a question that for me is really interesting, which Steve tried to answer but the earlier 44 comments have ignored.

    Wtf is going on in China?

    I know people who have lived in China and currently have a friend living there now. By all accounts, life there is generally better now than in the US (or at least in the big coastal cities). The place is wealthier, has more advanced infrastructure, and there is actually less surveillance.

    But lots of Chinese are desperate to get out. From some of the accounts I've read, high ranking Communist Party types and their families seem to predominate in this crowd.

    So what is happening in China that we are not being told about?

    The financial aid explanation is a nice try, but though admittedly their reputation is inflated, I don't think American universities are THAT good.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @res, @bomag, @verylongaccountname, @Faraday's Bobcat

    So what is happening in China that we are not being told about?

    One explanation is the harsh penalties for corruption (i.e. people trying to secure their ill gotten gains). Not sure how important this is overall and what other factors there are.

  88. @snorlax
    @wren

    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it's too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away).

    And there's no way such an effort wouldn't fail at the current Supreme Court.

    If Trump/successor appoints replacements for Ginsberg and Souter, then it might be worth a shot, assuming all the relative low-hanging fruit (wall, visas, deportations, legal immigration) has already been taken care of.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Wilkey, @ben tillman, @colm

    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it’s too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away).

    I can’t imagine how this could be in any way confusing to anyone.

  89. @Bleuteaux
    @Nanashi

    It's death by politeness in the US.

    Replies: @Kylie

    “It’s death by politeness in the US.”

    Yes and kindness as weakness.

  90. @anonguy

    But lots of Chinese are desperate to get out.
     
    Maybe it is just lagging perceptions on their part, just a tradition at this point. Or maybe the foul environment, bad air, etc, which creates problems not just in China, but in surrounding countries, it is so bad.

    The interesting part to me is I find many Chinese who emigrate remain quite chauvinistic about China being superior to the US. The other interesting part is while so many are trying to get out, so many non-Chinese, while not immigrating to China, are very interested in living there. Among the younger smart set, it is very hip and cool to be an expat in China. That doesn't usually happen with places that are hellholes with residents desperate to escape.

    OTOH, there are few demographics larger than being Chinese, so even if a million or so Chinese emigrate per year, for every emigrant, there are over a thousand who remain. So even if it looks like hordes of Chinese want to escape, it very well may be a vanishingly small minority sentiment among Chinese in China.

    Somewhat OT: Chinese tourists seem quite unpopular in Japan, FWIW, it isn't at all like when Japanese tourists were first swamping Hawaii in the 80s, where despite the carping, most residents seemed to feel that the Japanese tourists were basically good Joes if a bit odd at times.

    Google new chitose airport chinese riot and read some of the comments by Japanese nationals.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    The Japanese and the Chinese are working through some long-running hate. There’s a lot of hilarity and amusement involved – for example, one of the objections that the ultranationalist Japanese have of the Chinese is that the Chinese are not Confucian enough. Evidently the far-right maintains that they keep the “pure” form while China debased it with Neoconfucianism and later, of course, the Cultural Revolution.

    One could argue that they are fundamentally wrong by definition since the great-descendants of Confucius are well known, and there are those who argue to restore a form of government where they maintain a hereditary position. Wouldn’t they, by definition, define what is actually pure Confucianism then?

    Not people far away on an island.

  91. @Autochthon
    @Opinionator

    This idea makes perfect sense in the context of functional and adaptive bioevolutionary behaviour. However, your idea itself contains the hint of the trouble: total fertility rates among Americans v. among the invaders.*

    More and more American women (and women of the European diaspora at large) view conception and birth as tantamount to the contraction of HIV or a diagnosis of cancer. Thus, they are wholly unmoved by the incentives you discuss. This root psychopathy regarding reproduction is a huge part of the problem. Stabilised populations are wonderful; failure to reproduce at even replacement-rates is doom. Apathy and animosity toward reproduction has engendered an attitude of "Après moi, le deluge."

    *I call all these people what they are: invaders, not immigrants; I encourage others to adopt this more precise term as well. Language has power (cf. Orwell's Politics & The English Language, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, etc.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Opinionator

    “*I call all these people what they are: invaders, not immigrants; I encourage others to adopt this more precise term as well. ”

    Good point. And we shouldn’t let anyone get away with conflating American citizens with American residents by saying “Americans” when they mean simply anyone who lives in America.

    I notice leftists do this constantly when lamenting “rising inequality”. Sure there’s rising inequality–we’re letting in a bunch of low income or no income foreigners!

    I would love to see an end to dual citizenship and to birthright citizenship unless both parents are American citizens.

    • Replies: @Karlub
    @Kylie

    I actually use "Americans" generally as camel's nose deal.

    Say "I think immigration and trade policy should prioritize the interests of Americans. Don't you?"

    For the purposes of that conversation if the person with whom I am speaking wants to smuggle in a more 'diverse' set of Americans, that is a good thing. Because at least I now have them acknowledging that the interests of people who *aren't* Americans isn't of similar importance.

    , @Grace Jones
    @Kylie

    Kylie, "dual citizenship" simply means that two separate governments consider someone to be a citizen. It is not something that can be legislated away unilaterally. At least one government in this world doesn't even allow its nationals to renounce their citizenship. So are other governments supposed to let that government dictate the terms of who they consider their own citizens, out of some phobia about "dual citizenship"?

    Also, to which country would you deport someone born in the US to married legal immigrants from Canada and England, who never became US citizens even after more than 25 years? Especially considering that neither Canada nor England considers such a US-born person to be one of their own after so many years residing abroad.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @ben tillman, @Kylie

  92. @Nanashi

    The people speak her language, but they are always judging and comparing, evaluating the clothes she wears, the home and neighborhood she lives in, the school her children will attend. A life in America is a break from all of that.

    “Here people are not so competitive, trying to wear better clothes and use better things,” Tracy said. “I don’t even have to wear makeup.” …
     
    This rings really true to me -- but it's only partly about America, and partly about the attitude towards America that you see peeking through here. Basically, that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. You don't have to worry about doing the done thing. You can lounge around in sweatpants all day and eat pizza. You don't have to call on people or host salons or parties or keep up with the latest trends and fashions. You don't have to be civilised.

    Americans don't actually see their society that way, for the most part, because they do care about keeping up appearances in their own way (especially in California). But to many foreigners, America is like the Raj. The barriers between classes are weaker than they would be at home: gentleman or tradesman, you're all Chinese, or you're all Korean, or whatever. So you have opportunities for social advancement you would never enjoy otherwise. And you can act however you like in front of the natives because they don't count.

    Replies: @Bleuteaux, @Kylie, @Elsewhere

    Yes, American citizens, quite apart from their treacherous government, are suicidally welcoming and credulous.

  93. Abe says: • Website

    If only the U.S. government simply declared all 1.2 billion Chinese and their posterity unto the seventh generation to be U.S. citizens with all the rights and privileges such as instate tuition at Berkeley and financial aid at USC, this problem would be solved.

    The most succinct expression of anarcho-tyranny in quite a while:

    “Who am I to say who gets to be an American or not? I just won the birth lottery by being born here. But I’ll be damned if some dirt-kicker from Oklahoma gets to attend my state’s flagship university without paying full tuition!”

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @Abe

    In my 2011 article on birth tourism, I pointed out that the good people of Beverly Hills have created hereditary Beverly Hills residency privileges by blood: A lot of the children of wealthy old people living in Beverly Hills can't afford to live in Beverly Hills themselves, but they can still send their children to Beverly Hills public schools, even if they have fallen so far in life as to have to live in The Valley, if they can prove their children are the grandchildren of Beverly Hills residents. Santa Monica and Malibu have similar systems of hereditary privilege.

  94. @Anonymous
    What about foreign born wives married to American men? Should their kids get citizenship?

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @Hell_Is_Like_Newark, @Truth

    This has already been addressed by Federal law: If at least on of the parents is a US citizen, the child is a US citizen, even if the birth is outside the United States or US territories.

  95. @eD
    This post raised a question that for me is really interesting, which Steve tried to answer but the earlier 44 comments have ignored.

    Wtf is going on in China?

    I know people who have lived in China and currently have a friend living there now. By all accounts, life there is generally better now than in the US (or at least in the big coastal cities). The place is wealthier, has more advanced infrastructure, and there is actually less surveillance.

    But lots of Chinese are desperate to get out. From some of the accounts I've read, high ranking Communist Party types and their families seem to predominate in this crowd.

    So what is happening in China that we are not being told about?

    The financial aid explanation is a nice try, but though admittedly their reputation is inflated, I don't think American universities are THAT good.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @res, @bomag, @verylongaccountname, @Faraday's Bobcat

    But lots of Chinese are desperate to get out.

    They are desperate to get in on the looting as America gives itself away.

    There is a pernicious meme out there that other countries all suck and the only way to fix them is to move all their people to the US.

    Every immigrant with whom I’ve interacted gets around to lecturing me about how great is their old country, and I can thank them later when they’ve expanded the brand and re-created their old country.

    • Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic
    @bomag

    Yes. This narrative of the rest of the world as a prison where the greedy, mean Americans keep everybody else locked up away from the Horn Of Plenty needs to end.

  96. @Autochthon
    @Opinionator

    This idea makes perfect sense in the context of functional and adaptive bioevolutionary behaviour. However, your idea itself contains the hint of the trouble: total fertility rates among Americans v. among the invaders.*

    More and more American women (and women of the European diaspora at large) view conception and birth as tantamount to the contraction of HIV or a diagnosis of cancer. Thus, they are wholly unmoved by the incentives you discuss. This root psychopathy regarding reproduction is a huge part of the problem. Stabilised populations are wonderful; failure to reproduce at even replacement-rates is doom. Apathy and animosity toward reproduction has engendered an attitude of "Après moi, le deluge."

    *I call all these people what they are: invaders, not immigrants; I encourage others to adopt this more precise term as well. Language has power (cf. Orwell's Politics & The English Language, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, etc.

    Replies: @Kylie, @Opinionator

    More and more American women (and women of the European diaspora at large) view conception and birth as tantamount to the contraction of HIV or a diagnosis of cancer. Thus, they are wholly unmoved by the incentives you discuss.

    This doesn’t follow. First, you are referring to their choosing to have children while I am referring to their opposing foreign women having many babies in their habitat. Second, women today are only barely exposed to the kind of presentation of the world that I have suggested making in this context. I posited that birth tourism (and, probably, birthright to more fertile–use that phrase–illegal alien females) are triggers that awaken our women’s competitive and protective instincts. Try it on a few women (including one of grandmother age) and report back. Whichever of us is wrong sends a $50 donation to Steve.

    failure to reproduce at even replacement-rates is doom.

    Not necessarily. Not if borders are maintained. Our habitats in North America and Europe are overpopulated.

    • Replies: @Autochthon
    @Opinionator

    It absolutely follows that the most powerful motivation for opposing the presence of foreign children is those children's competition agianst a native mother's children for scarce resources.

    I agree with your second point (about overpopoluation) entirely, though Anna Eshoo (D - Assyria) passionately disagrees. Notwithstanding the overpopulation, though, white women are increasingly failing to bear even two children (replacement-rates). I hypothesise (and you may agree) that part of the trouble here is that we whites are like angel fish: just as they only grow as large as their aquariums will comfortably allow, we seem to reproduce only up to a sustainable level, whereas the brown peoples of the world breed like unchecked deer or lemmings, until they destroy their very habitats. Here again, you are right: that perverse behavior would be fine, if we sensibly confined them to destroying their lands and facing the consequences, rather than blithely inviting them to move along to destroying ours as well.

  97. @eD
    This post raised a question that for me is really interesting, which Steve tried to answer but the earlier 44 comments have ignored.

    Wtf is going on in China?

    I know people who have lived in China and currently have a friend living there now. By all accounts, life there is generally better now than in the US (or at least in the big coastal cities). The place is wealthier, has more advanced infrastructure, and there is actually less surveillance.

    But lots of Chinese are desperate to get out. From some of the accounts I've read, high ranking Communist Party types and their families seem to predominate in this crowd.

    So what is happening in China that we are not being told about?

    The financial aid explanation is a nice try, but though admittedly their reputation is inflated, I don't think American universities are THAT good.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @res, @bomag, @verylongaccountname, @Faraday's Bobcat

    I’m curious about this too. I don’t imagine that tuition discounts are really that big of a deal for the foreign students I see around near the UC campuses. A lot of the foreign Chinese students are driving around in expensive cars (not mercedes or BMWS, but really expensive cars like bentleys, ferraris, masseratis, lamborginis and the like). I can’t imagine that someone who buys a 300K car for their kid really cares that much about tuition money …

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    @verylongaccountname

    Birth tourism tends to be popular among the lower upper middle class in China (or something like that) rather than the plutocratic class.

  98. Abe says: • Website
    @Alec Leamas
    Am I the only one who sees a potential for the Chinese to be creating an espionage program from the U.S. Citizen Chinese who will be raised to be fully loyal to the PRC? Wouldn't the pool of dual U.S. and Chinese citizens raised entirely in China be a promising pool from which to select and train spies?

    Replies: @Abe, @colm

    Am I the only one who sees a potential for the Chinese to be creating an espionage program from the U.S. Citizen Chinese who will be raised to be fully loyal to the PRC?

    Whoa, whoa, whoa there, deplorable! The only categorically bad spies are those that work for Putin. How do you know some or all of these “spies” of Chinese background may not be undocumented double agents working for the US government? Or documented double agents? Or undocumented triple agents? Or documented quadruple agents? Or undocumented quintuple agents…

  99. Abe says: • Website
    @Peter Akuleyev
    @whorefinder

    This latter version—the “immigrants” not immigrating at all, but only doing part-year work to become fat and wealthy for the rest of the year at home—is something I seldom see told on the immigration patriot websites, but is a pretty good argument against open borders as well

    This was actually very common in the late 19th century. Many immigrants assumed at some point they would go home to the old country and live like kings. Trump's grandfather apparently would have moved back to Germany had the King of Bavaria not said no. My great-grandfather had always intended to move back to his Italian village, and had gone back and forth a few times in the decade before 1914. World War I put an end to that and forced German, Italian and Central European immigrants to assimilate. This part of the story is also ignored in immigration fairy tales. In the 19th century immigration created huge social issues in the US that mostly ended only when immigration slowed down dramatically in the early 20th century.

    Replies: @Abe

    This part of the story is also ignored in immigration fairy tales. In the 19th century immigration created huge social issues in the US that mostly ended only when immigration slowed down dramatically in the early 20th century.

    The only movies that Hollywood seems to make these day (and which account for like 90% of profits once merchandising is factored) are superhero movies. And yet pretty much all of these (certainly Batman) have their origins in fears generated by the Ellis Island crime wave that really took off with Prohibition (wasn’t Alphonse Capone a Dreamer once too?). So ignored, but right in our faces at the same time.

  100. @Kylie
    @Autochthon

    "*I call all these people what they are: invaders, not immigrants; I encourage others to adopt this more precise term as well. "

    Good point. And we shouldn't let anyone get away with conflating American citizens with American residents by saying "Americans" when they mean simply anyone who lives in America.

    I notice leftists do this constantly when lamenting "rising inequality". Sure there's rising inequality--we're letting in a bunch of low income or no income foreigners!

    I would love to see an end to dual citizenship and to birthright citizenship unless both parents are American citizens.

    Replies: @Karlub, @Grace Jones

    I actually use “Americans” generally as camel’s nose deal.

    Say “I think immigration and trade policy should prioritize the interests of Americans. Don’t you?”

    For the purposes of that conversation if the person with whom I am speaking wants to smuggle in a more ‘diverse’ set of Americans, that is a good thing. Because at least I now have them acknowledging that the interests of people who *aren’t* Americans isn’t of similar importance.

  101. @TWS
    Is there a birth tourism center near you, Steve? Why is this yarding your chain so hard? For goodness sake I live in a town with more illegal gang members than the moneyed pregnant Chinese you deal with.

    Why worry about the law abiding drops in a bucket while your fellow citizens are literally dealing with MS13, Guatemalan death squad members and hard core drug dealing criminals? Sure it annoys you because it is a minor monetizing of a mildly illegal action but you'll meet with more official opposition to parking in the wrong place than a few Chinese women who are spending your tax dollars and that is exactly the same resistance you'll see you actual, real criminal illegals like the murderous gang members I see every day.

    You worry about Yao Ming's mom because it spends some of the college money you've paid to California. I'll worry about the guy who attacked my pregnant daughter whose already back in town and the guy who murdered a girl my daughter grew up with and the drug dealing gang banger who has had eight children with five women in the last twelve years. You're worrying about a hang nail while your arm has been ripped half off.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anon

    TWS, you’ve got to understand Steve Sailer. “The man’s a phenomenon!” [/Dennis Hopper – Apocalypse Now]. Steve will get on a roll with some subject and really get into detail, while, yes there are other things going on around us. (Sometimes it’s about football or movies, and I couldn’t give an RA about it, but you don’t have to read it).

    In his support regarding this post, it’s not like he ignores the Hispanic aspect of this subject – he lives in LA, right? Also, VDare covers the crap out of everything immigration-related, so he’s got 10-20 others writing on this subject too.

    OK, seeing if I can embed youtube here. Forgive me moderator if it’s not allowed – just let me know.

    I’m like Dennis Hopper here, man, and Sailer is like Colonel Kurtz:

    OK no embedding, which is understandable – here’s the scene (from 3:20 – 4:10):

    HERE

  102. Is FATCA applied to Chinese banks?

  103. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @3g4me
    @whorefinder

    The "left" didn't foist the Ellis Island narrative on Americans; the Ellis Island (((immigrants and their descendants))) created and maintain the entire narrative. The first thing any immigrant in America desires is more of his own people.

    The "melting pot" myth and meme was created by Israel Zangwill, an (((immigrant))) in England. The zeroth amendment was created by another (((immigrant's))) poem attached to France's gift of "Liberty Raising Her Torch." When there was no welfare, half of all immigrants returned to their native lands because they couldn't survive in America. When the host population maintained a strong confidence in the superiority of its language and culture and traditions, the immigrants were forced (to greater and lesser degrees) to at least superficially assimilate. Of course, (((immigrants))) in New York forced the removal of the very word "Christmas" from all New York public school textbooks and song books in 1906, but hey, (((they))) and (((their descendants))), now all constitutional scholars, tell everyone what the Founders REALLY meant by "our posterity."

    Replies: @Anonymous

    The zeroth amendment was created by another (((immigrant’s))) poem attached to France’s gift of “Liberty Raising Her Torch.”

    Emma Lazarus was not an immigrant, she was from a sephardic Portugeese family that has been in the US since before it was founded. There’s even a Portugeese synagogue in New York that was founded in 1654.

    I suspect your history in this country isn’t nearly as deep as hers

    This kind of content free altright virtue signaling should stay on therighstuff.biz

  104. @Autochthon
    @Diversity Heretic

    Don't be silly; of course the children born on American soil to foreign diplomats and alien invaders expressly here in contempt and mockery of our systems are American citizens as much as those of us descended from founding stock. It's well settled law, and to even suggest otherwise is un-American and a violation of the invaders' basic civil rights under the penumbras of the Zeroth Amendment. Just ask congresswoman and renowned constitutional law expert Anna Eshoo (D – Assyria).

    Replies: @Olorin, @colm

    “Well-settled laws” favoring foreign invaders should go into crappers, and those who did not live for more than 3 years in USA with a citizenship should not be allowed.

    That logic would also have finished off Mr. Bruce Lee, born in 1940 while his parents were touring America as troupes, and lived in Hong Kong for 17 years until he got into a local trouble and returned to the country of his citizenship.

    If America had been serious the port authority in SF would have taken Mr Lee’s passport, and deport him back to HK where the people pursuing him would have finished him off.

  105. @snorlax
    @wren

    As unfortunate as it is, getting rid of birthright citizenship is pretty much the worst losing issue there is in the field of immigration reduction (it's too confusing for most people and millions of ordinary Americans would be wondering if their own citizenship were going to be taken away).

    And there's no way such an effort wouldn't fail at the current Supreme Court.

    If Trump/successor appoints replacements for Ginsberg and Souter, then it might be worth a shot, assuming all the relative low-hanging fruit (wall, visas, deportations, legal immigration) has already been taken care of.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Wilkey, @ben tillman, @colm

    Then so be it. Those who should not be citizens should not have citizenship, and ‘millions of ordinary Americans’ who might have to worry about their citizenship taken away are likely those who should not have had citizenship to begin with.

  106. @Alec Leamas
    Am I the only one who sees a potential for the Chinese to be creating an espionage program from the U.S. Citizen Chinese who will be raised to be fully loyal to the PRC? Wouldn't the pool of dual U.S. and Chinese citizens raised entirely in China be a promising pool from which to select and train spies?

    Replies: @Abe, @colm

    People have forgotten the Tokyo Rose, an “American” who spent most of her life in Japan when the war broke. Incredibly, she was later allowed to reenter America!

  107. @bomag
    @snorlax


    It’s also pretty poor optics in its own right
     
    The other side is always able to rent a wheel chair and give us sobbing, screaming optics about impending maximum doom unless they get their way. We're going to have to resist this or go extinct.

    Replies: @The preferred nomenclature is...

    If a leftist doesn’t consider me a cold hearted evil bastard anti-fill in the blank on a daily basis I am failing my children miserably.

  108. @verylongaccountname
    @eD

    I'm curious about this too. I don't imagine that tuition discounts are really that big of a deal for the foreign students I see around near the UC campuses. A lot of the foreign Chinese students are driving around in expensive cars (not mercedes or BMWS, but really expensive cars like bentleys, ferraris, masseratis, lamborginis and the like). I can't imagine that someone who buys a 300K car for their kid really cares that much about tuition money ...

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    Birth tourism tends to be popular among the lower upper middle class in China (or something like that) rather than the plutocratic class.

  109. @bomag
    @eD


    But lots of Chinese are desperate to get out.
     
    They are desperate to get in on the looting as America gives itself away.

    There is a pernicious meme out there that other countries all suck and the only way to fix them is to move all their people to the US.

    Every immigrant with whom I've interacted gets around to lecturing me about how great is their old country, and I can thank them later when they've expanded the brand and re-created their old country.

    Replies: @The Anti-Gnostic

    Yes. This narrative of the rest of the world as a prison where the greedy, mean Americans keep everybody else locked up away from the Horn Of Plenty needs to end.

  110. @Abe

    If only the U.S. government simply declared all 1.2 billion Chinese and their posterity unto the seventh generation to be U.S. citizens with all the rights and privileges such as instate tuition at Berkeley and financial aid at USC, this problem would be solved.
     
    The most succinct expression of anarcho-tyranny in quite a while:

    "Who am I to say who gets to be an American or not? I just won the birth lottery by being born here. But I'll be damned if some dirt-kicker from Oklahoma gets to attend my state's flagship university without paying full tuition!"

    Replies: @Steve Sailer

    In my 2011 article on birth tourism, I pointed out that the good people of Beverly Hills have created hereditary Beverly Hills residency privileges by blood: A lot of the children of wealthy old people living in Beverly Hills can’t afford to live in Beverly Hills themselves, but they can still send their children to Beverly Hills public schools, even if they have fallen so far in life as to have to live in The Valley, if they can prove their children are the grandchildren of Beverly Hills residents. Santa Monica and Malibu have similar systems of hereditary privilege.

  111. @res
    @Under the Cone of Silence


    If foreigners come to US and have a child, the US tax payer has claim on that child.
     
    Has birth tourism been around long enough to get a sense of how this is working in practice? I know the IRS is aggressive with Americans overseas in the general case, but not sure about this specific case.

    I would think wealthy Chinese would be particularly concerned about this aspect of US citizenship.

    Replies: @Opinionator

    How would the IRS ever find out?

  112. Well, some people love Beverly Hills, thence they care about it.
    No people love the USA, thence they don’t care about it (and don’t mind “sharing” it: altruism kicks in when real personal interest is lacking, not a moment sooner).

  113. @eD
    This post raised a question that for me is really interesting, which Steve tried to answer but the earlier 44 comments have ignored.

    Wtf is going on in China?

    I know people who have lived in China and currently have a friend living there now. By all accounts, life there is generally better now than in the US (or at least in the big coastal cities). The place is wealthier, has more advanced infrastructure, and there is actually less surveillance.

    But lots of Chinese are desperate to get out. From some of the accounts I've read, high ranking Communist Party types and their families seem to predominate in this crowd.

    So what is happening in China that we are not being told about?

    The financial aid explanation is a nice try, but though admittedly their reputation is inflated, I don't think American universities are THAT good.

    Replies: @Daniel Chieh, @res, @bomag, @verylongaccountname, @Faraday's Bobcat

    Birth tourism doesn’t imply there’s anything wrong in China. The US born Chinese kids are still just as Chinese as if they were born in China. They aren’t giving up anything but the cost of the birth tour. Hell, they probably don’t even pay their doctor bill. Doctors write off bills for people a lot easier to track down than someone who went back to China a week after birth.

  114. @Vinay
    Is this really worth fixing? From what I can tell
    A) it's a small fraction (couple of percent) of total annual immigration, and
    B) it's a fraction of the totally "legit" births to non-immigrants (tourist, students, guest workers etc.)

    I get that you guys would like to fix it but in terms of bang for the immigration-restrictionist buck, seems like a low priority. Unless there's a cheap, quickie fix, of course.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Olorin, @donut, @wren, @bomag, @ben tillman, @anonguy, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @notsaying

    Birth tourism is an extreme example of a extremely stupid immigration policy.

    It gives a lifetime “We Owe You” card, via a birth certificate, to someone who is born here and then gone in a few weeks. Even people who are normally unable to say NO to anything about immigrants can say NO! to this obvious lunacy.

    The symbolism is very important here. Making this illegal would prove to ourselves and the world that we can make objective decisions and rational limits to our immigration system. It would signify an end to automatic birthright citizenship to all infants.

    I would be all for using this side issue as a start to get us going on the larger immigration issues.

    • Agree: Opinionator
  115. @Kylie
    @Autochthon

    "*I call all these people what they are: invaders, not immigrants; I encourage others to adopt this more precise term as well. "

    Good point. And we shouldn't let anyone get away with conflating American citizens with American residents by saying "Americans" when they mean simply anyone who lives in America.

    I notice leftists do this constantly when lamenting "rising inequality". Sure there's rising inequality--we're letting in a bunch of low income or no income foreigners!

    I would love to see an end to dual citizenship and to birthright citizenship unless both parents are American citizens.

    Replies: @Karlub, @Grace Jones

    Kylie, “dual citizenship” simply means that two separate governments consider someone to be a citizen. It is not something that can be legislated away unilaterally. At least one government in this world doesn’t even allow its nationals to renounce their citizenship. So are other governments supposed to let that government dictate the terms of who they consider their own citizens, out of some phobia about “dual citizenship”?

    Also, to which country would you deport someone born in the US to married legal immigrants from Canada and England, who never became US citizens even after more than 25 years? Especially considering that neither Canada nor England considers such a US-born person to be one of their own after so many years residing abroad.

    • Replies: @Opinionator
    @Grace Jones

    At least one government in this world doesn’t even allow its nationals to renounce their citizenship. So are other governments supposed to let that government dictate the terms of who they consider their own citizens, out of some phobia about “dual citizenship”?

    In principle, yes. That should at least be a major factor, possibly a decisive one. But you are also making a strawman argument here. There could be exceptions where certain rigorous criteria are met. Or perhaps the state you refer to could be prevailed upon to rescind the foreign citizenship.

    Also, to which country would you deport someone born in the US to married legal immigrants from Canada and England, who never became US citizens even after more than 25 years? Especially considering that neither Canada nor England considers such a US-born person to be one of their own after so many years residing abroad.

    Another strawman. Such a person could apply for U.S. citizenship. It should not, however, be automatic as a constitutional right.

    , @ben tillman
    @Grace Jones


    Kylie, “dual citizenship” simply means that two separate governments consider someone to be a citizen. It is not something that can be legislated away unilaterally.
     
    Of course, it can. The government of one country terminates citizenship for that same country.
    , @Kylie
    @Grace Jones

    "Kylie, 'dual citizenship' simply means that two separate governments consider someone to be a citizen."

    Yes, I managed to grasp that.

    And as far as American citizenship is concerned, I'm unalterably opposed to it.

  116. @Grace Jones
    @Kylie

    Kylie, "dual citizenship" simply means that two separate governments consider someone to be a citizen. It is not something that can be legislated away unilaterally. At least one government in this world doesn't even allow its nationals to renounce their citizenship. So are other governments supposed to let that government dictate the terms of who they consider their own citizens, out of some phobia about "dual citizenship"?

    Also, to which country would you deport someone born in the US to married legal immigrants from Canada and England, who never became US citizens even after more than 25 years? Especially considering that neither Canada nor England considers such a US-born person to be one of their own after so many years residing abroad.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @ben tillman, @Kylie

    At least one government in this world doesn’t even allow its nationals to renounce their citizenship. So are other governments supposed to let that government dictate the terms of who they consider their own citizens, out of some phobia about “dual citizenship”?

    In principle, yes. That should at least be a major factor, possibly a decisive one. But you are also making a strawman argument here. There could be exceptions where certain rigorous criteria are met. Or perhaps the state you refer to could be prevailed upon to rescind the foreign citizenship.

    Also, to which country would you deport someone born in the US to married legal immigrants from Canada and England, who never became US citizens even after more than 25 years? Especially considering that neither Canada nor England considers such a US-born person to be one of their own after so many years residing abroad.

    Another strawman. Such a person could apply for U.S. citizenship. It should not, however, be automatic as a constitutional right.

  117. @Grace Jones
    @Kylie

    Kylie, "dual citizenship" simply means that two separate governments consider someone to be a citizen. It is not something that can be legislated away unilaterally. At least one government in this world doesn't even allow its nationals to renounce their citizenship. So are other governments supposed to let that government dictate the terms of who they consider their own citizens, out of some phobia about "dual citizenship"?

    Also, to which country would you deport someone born in the US to married legal immigrants from Canada and England, who never became US citizens even after more than 25 years? Especially considering that neither Canada nor England considers such a US-born person to be one of their own after so many years residing abroad.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @ben tillman, @Kylie

    Kylie, “dual citizenship” simply means that two separate governments consider someone to be a citizen. It is not something that can be legislated away unilaterally.

    Of course, it can. The government of one country terminates citizenship for that same country.

  118. @Grace Jones
    @Kylie

    Kylie, "dual citizenship" simply means that two separate governments consider someone to be a citizen. It is not something that can be legislated away unilaterally. At least one government in this world doesn't even allow its nationals to renounce their citizenship. So are other governments supposed to let that government dictate the terms of who they consider their own citizens, out of some phobia about "dual citizenship"?

    Also, to which country would you deport someone born in the US to married legal immigrants from Canada and England, who never became US citizens even after more than 25 years? Especially considering that neither Canada nor England considers such a US-born person to be one of their own after so many years residing abroad.

    Replies: @Opinionator, @ben tillman, @Kylie

    “Kylie, ‘dual citizenship’ simply means that two separate governments consider someone to be a citizen.”

    Yes, I managed to grasp that.

    And as far as American citizenship is concerned, I’m unalterably opposed to it.

    • Agree: Opinionator
  119. @Anonymous
    What about foreign born wives married to American men? Should their kids get citizenship?

    Replies: @Opinionator, @Daniel Chieh, @The preferred nomenclature is..., @Hell_Is_Like_Newark, @Truth

    Ask Derb.

  120. @Nanashi

    The people speak her language, but they are always judging and comparing, evaluating the clothes she wears, the home and neighborhood she lives in, the school her children will attend. A life in America is a break from all of that.

    “Here people are not so competitive, trying to wear better clothes and use better things,” Tracy said. “I don’t even have to wear makeup.” …
     
    This rings really true to me -- but it's only partly about America, and partly about the attitude towards America that you see peeking through here. Basically, that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. You don't have to worry about doing the done thing. You can lounge around in sweatpants all day and eat pizza. You don't have to call on people or host salons or parties or keep up with the latest trends and fashions. You don't have to be civilised.

    Americans don't actually see their society that way, for the most part, because they do care about keeping up appearances in their own way (especially in California). But to many foreigners, America is like the Raj. The barriers between classes are weaker than they would be at home: gentleman or tradesman, you're all Chinese, or you're all Korean, or whatever. So you have opportunities for social advancement you would never enjoy otherwise. And you can act however you like in front of the natives because they don't count.

    Replies: @Bleuteaux, @Kylie, @Elsewhere

    It’s funny. This is how I felt when I was in China. Although I knew it wasn’t a free country for the natives, I felt free to reinvent myself or simply be myself and not worry about being judged.

  121. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @TWS
    Is there a birth tourism center near you, Steve? Why is this yarding your chain so hard? For goodness sake I live in a town with more illegal gang members than the moneyed pregnant Chinese you deal with.

    Why worry about the law abiding drops in a bucket while your fellow citizens are literally dealing with MS13, Guatemalan death squad members and hard core drug dealing criminals? Sure it annoys you because it is a minor monetizing of a mildly illegal action but you'll meet with more official opposition to parking in the wrong place than a few Chinese women who are spending your tax dollars and that is exactly the same resistance you'll see you actual, real criminal illegals like the murderous gang members I see every day.

    You worry about Yao Ming's mom because it spends some of the college money you've paid to California. I'll worry about the guy who attacked my pregnant daughter whose already back in town and the guy who murdered a girl my daughter grew up with and the drug dealing gang banger who has had eight children with five women in the last twelve years. You're worrying about a hang nail while your arm has been ripped half off.

    Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @anon

    Yes, but the Mexicans are coming in less than the Chinese now. In fact Mexico’s birth rate is now at 2.0 and probably 1.5 by 2025 while the Chinese pour into Orange County now twice the rate of the Latinos. OC went from only 15 percent Asian in 2008 to 20 percent currently during to the US census. Santa Ana is less of the threat in some ways than Irvine which has pushed housing in the OC to 660,000 since the rich Chinese buy also in Newport Beach.

  122. @Opinionator
    @Autochthon

    More and more American women (and women of the European diaspora at large) view conception and birth as tantamount to the contraction of HIV or a diagnosis of cancer. Thus, they are wholly unmoved by the incentives you discuss.

    This doesn't follow. First, you are referring to their choosing to have children while I am referring to their opposing foreign women having many babies in their habitat. Second, women today are only barely exposed to the kind of presentation of the world that I have suggested making in this context. I posited that birth tourism (and, probably, birthright to more fertile--use that phrase--illegal alien females) are triggers that awaken our women's competitive and protective instincts. Try it on a few women (including one of grandmother age) and report back. Whichever of us is wrong sends a $50 donation to Steve.

    failure to reproduce at even replacement-rates is doom.

    Not necessarily. Not if borders are maintained. Our habitats in North America and Europe are overpopulated.

    Replies: @Autochthon

    It absolutely follows that the most powerful motivation for opposing the presence of foreign children is those children’s competition agianst a native mother’s children for scarce resources.

    I agree with your second point (about overpopoluation) entirely, though Anna Eshoo (D – Assyria) passionately disagrees. Notwithstanding the overpopulation, though, white women are increasingly failing to bear even two children (replacement-rates). I hypothesise (and you may agree) that part of the trouble here is that we whites are like angel fish: just as they only grow as large as their aquariums will comfortably allow, we seem to reproduce only up to a sustainable level, whereas the brown peoples of the world breed like unchecked deer or lemmings, until they destroy their very habitats. Here again, you are right: that perverse behavior would be fine, if we sensibly confined them to destroying their lands and facing the consequences, rather than blithely inviting them to move along to destroying ours as well.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS