Birth Tourism

In this photo taken on Jan. 24, 2019, Denis Wolok, the father of 1-month-old Eva’s father, shows the child’s U.S. passport during an interview with The Associated Press in Hollywood, Fla. Every year, hundreds of pregnant Russian women, like Wolok’s wife, Olga Zemlyanaya, travel to the United States to give birth so that their child can acquire all the privileges of American citizenship. (AP Photo/Iuliia Stashevska)

What is birth tourism? According to Wikipedia:

Birth tourism is the practice of traveling to another country for the purpose of giving birth in that country. The main reason for birth tourism is to obtain citizenship for the child in a country with birthright citizenship (jus soli). Such a child is sometimes called an “anchor baby” if their citizenship is intended to help their parents obtain permanent residency in the country. Other reasons for birth tourism include access to public schooling, healthcare, sponsorship for the parents in the future, or even circumvention of China’s two-child policy. Popular destinations include the United States and Canada.

At present in the United States, babies born on our soil automatically have U.S. citizenship, due to an interpretation of the 14th amendment to our Constitution.

The citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees U.S. citizenship to those born in the United States, provided the person is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Congress has further extended birthright citizenship to all inhabited U.S. territories except American Samoa. Once they reach 21 years of age, American-born children, as birthright citizens, are able to sponsor their foreign families’ U.S. citizenship and residency.

The argument hinges on the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”. Those who oppose birthright citizenship (include me in this camp) contend that a foreign national is NOT subject to U.S. jurisdiction. The original intent of the 14th amendment was to protect the rights of children born to negro parents who were former slaves. It nullified the Supreme Court’s decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which had held that Americans descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United States.

Also, according to Wikipedia:

In an effort to discourage birth tourism, Australia, France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and the United Kingdom have modified their citizenship laws at different times, mostly by granting citizenship by birth only if at least one parent is a citizen of the country or a legal permanent resident who has lived in the country for several years.

The United States should follow suit. In that vein, the Trump administration is taking a first step to limit birth tourism and birthright citizenship:

Associated Press

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is coming out Thursday with new visa restrictions aimed at restricting “birth tourism,” in which women travel to the U.S. to give birth so their children can have a coveted U.S. passport.

Visa applicants deemed by consular officers to be coming to the U.S. primarily to give birth will now be treated like other foreigners coming to the U.S. for medical treatment, according to State Department guidance sent Wednesday and viewed by The Associated Press. The applicants will have to prove they are coming for medical treatment and they have the money to pay for it.

The State Department planned to publicize the rules Thursday, according to two officials with knowledge of the plans who spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity. The rules will take effect Friday.

The practice of traveling to the U.S. to give birth is fundamentally legal, although there are scattered cases of authorities arresting operators of birth tourism agencies for visa fraud or tax evasion. And women are often honest about their intentions when applying for visas and even show signed contracts with doctors and hospitals.

Another way that our government is fighting birth tourism is to crack down on people who are running birth tourism businesses, and even deporting them.

Mercury-News

A Chinese woman living in Irvine was sentenced Monday to a 10-month prison term in what is believed to be the first sentence handed to a birth tourism operator helping foreign nationals commit immigration and visa fraud so they can have American babies.

Dongyuan Li, 42, was released from jail late Monday, Dec. 16, for time already served. She has been imprisoned since her arrest on Jan. 31.

Federal prosecutors sought a sentence of several years and expressed disappointment that Li was free. They said they plan to begin deportation proceedings immediately.

“We’re not happy with it,” said Daniel Showalter, supervisory special agent for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Los Angeles. “But it’s not going to stop us from aggressively pursuing immigration violations and fraud.”

Li’s attorney, Thomas O’Brien, said he was pleased for his client, who faced a possible maximum sentence of 15 years.

“She’s going home,” O’Brien said. “She’s a mommy.”

Li is a mother to four children. Three of them, a two-year-old boy and six-year-old twin girls, were born in Southern California when Li arrived as a birth tourism customer herself. The three American children have since been taken to China to be with their father, Qiang Yan, a family friend said Monday.

Yan, who was also indicted a year ago, previously fled the country.

 

The JR Motel on E. Lincoln Ave in Orange, CA has been operating as a maternity hotel for Chinese women who want to give birth in California. Photographed on Tuesday, December 17, 2019. (Photo by Paul Bersebach, Orange County Register/SCNG)

This entry was posted in Constitution, Crime, Current Events, Illegal Immigration, Refugees & Aliens. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Birth Tourism

  1. auscitizenmom says:

    Makes me sick. 😡

    Liked by 3 people

  2. czarowniczy says:

    Back in ’92 I was in Southern California at a LEA conference. For dinner one night some BP folks took us out and on the way back took us by a hospital that almost exclusively catered to Latinas who came into the US just to have their babies. The babies would be born, mostly at public expense, the baby would get a US birth certificate and hospital staff would help mama apply for welfare benefits for the baby. There was a handy-dandy mailing service right nearby that would, for a small fee, rent the mama a mailbox that would give her a US address (e.g., 123 Main St, Unit 65) where checks could go to. The mama could either come over to pick up the checks or, for a small fee, have the check forwarded elsewhere. Whatta country.

    Also, some states like New York, are considering granting illegals ‘state citizenship’, including a driver’s licence and fullstate voting rights. But hey, what could POSSIBLY go wrong?

    Liked by 3 people

    • glendl says:

      There is a problem with full state voting rights.
      If the issue is pushed by the US Government and NY wishes to persist, NY could be forced into setting up two polling stations. One for the President and Congress and the other for the State offices. At least this is how I see it.
      In earlier years. the Feds wanted something and some states did not want it. Once the Feds insisted, the States fell inline rather than to set up two voting booths.
      I want to go read a couple of Amendments.

      Liked by 3 people

      • czarowniczy says:

        The part I see as ironic is the Northern liberal state of New York using the conservative defense of ‘states’ rights’. I know they’re going to argue that elections in the state are the exclusive purview of the state as is who can live in the state.

        As for seperate polling stations…they don’t do that now and a number of states are openly issuing illegals drivers’ licences and, under the Motor Voters law you get registered as soon as you get a DL. As most states don’t ask for proof of legitimate residence in the US before you get a dl, just proof of state residence, they’re home free.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. hocuspocus13 says:

    All of this because one left wing judge many years ago twisted and misconstrued the 14th Amendment

    …only in America! 🇺🇸

    Liked by 3 people

    • glendl says:

      hocuspocus13,
      It began with an Executive Order by President Johnson in 1965, then followed up by a Federal Regulation by a Civil Rights Agency.
      In 1982, a Supreme Court Justice placed it as a footnote in an unrelated Supreme Court Ruling.
      No one has dared question it, it has never made it into Court for an official ruling.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. glendl says:

    The hairball idea of Birthright Citizenship or Anchor Babies developed in 1965 following the passage of the Immigration Reform Act. To arrive at this decision, the 14th Amendment was perverted. An Amendment to the Constitution should Never be used for something other than intended.
    The 14th Amendment was passed to prevent Southern Democrats from forcing the newly freed slaves back into slavery by some legal machinations. Below is the sentence that was perverted. The 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 and until 1965 never granted birthright citizenship to certain classes of people.

    “, All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”
    Here is the phrase that is ignored. ” …subject to the jurisdiction thereof … ”
    If a male minor crosses into the US illegally, are they required by law to Register for the Selective Service within 5 days of his 18th birthday?
    NO. No one has ever been prosecuted for that failure.
    Do colleges insist that all males applying for financial aid provide proof of Registration with the Selective Service?

    Now, I will find the exceptions to the 14th A as passed in 1868.

    Liked by 2 people

    • glendl says:

      EXCEPTIONS:

      Subject: Birthright Citizenship” A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment

      The Heritage Foundation
      Open Navigation Open Search
      COMMENTARY Immigration
      Birthright Citizenship: A Fundamental Misunderstanding of the 14th Amendment
      Oct 30th, 2018 3 min read
      COMMENTARY BY
      Hans A. von Spakovsky @HvonSpakovsky

      Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow
      Hans von Spakovsky is an authority on a wide range of issues – including civil rights, civil justice, the First Amendment, immigration.
      The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. vlana /Getty Images
      Key Takeaways

      Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally.

      Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

      Birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.
      Copied

      What’s the citizenship status of the children of illegal aliens? That question has spurred quite a debate over the 14th Amendment lately, with the news that several states—including Pennsylvania, Arizona, Oklahoma, Georgia, and South Carolina—may launch efforts to deny automatic citizenship to such children.

      Critics claim that anyone born in the United States is automatically a U.S. citizen, even if their parents are here illegally. But that ignores the text and legislative history of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 to extend citizenship to freed slaves and their children.

      The 14th Amendment doesn’t say that all persons born in the U.S. are citizens. It says that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are citizens. That second, critical, conditional phrase is conveniently ignored or misinterpreted by advocates of “birthright” citizenship.

      Critics erroneously believe that anyone present in the United States has “subjected” himself “to the jurisdiction” of the United States, which would extend citizenship to the children of tourists, diplomats, and illegal aliens alike.

      But that is not what that qualifying phrase means. Its original meaning refers to the political allegiance of an individual and the jurisdiction that a foreign government has over that individual.

      The fact that a tourist or illegal alien is subject to our laws and our courts if they violate our laws does not place them within the political “jurisdiction” of the United States as that phrase was defined by the framers of the 14th Amendment.

      This amendment’s language was derived from the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which provided that “[a]ll persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens.

      Sen. Lyman Trumbull, a key figure in the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country.

      As John Eastman, former dean of the Chapman School of Law, has said, many do not seem to understand “the distinction between partial, territorial jurisdiction, which subjects all who are present within the territory of a sovereign to the jurisdiction of that sovereign’s laws, and complete political jurisdiction, which requires allegiance to the sovereign as well.”

      In the famous Slaughter-House cases of 1872, the Supreme Court stated that this qualifying phrase was intended to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” This was confirmed in 1884 in another case, Elk vs. Wilkins, when citizenship was denied to an American Indian because he “owed immediate allegiance to” his tribe and not the United States.

      American Indians and their children did not become citizens until Congress passed the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. There would have been no need to pass such legislation if the 14th Amendment extended citizenship to every person born in America, no matter what the circumstances of their birth, and no matter who their parents are.

      Even in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the 1898 case most often cited by “birthright” supporters due to its overbroad language, the court only held that a child born of lawful, permanent residents was a U.S. citizen. That is a far cry from saying that a child born of individuals who are here illegally must be considered a U.S. citizen.

      Of course, the judges in that case were strongly influenced by the fact that there were discriminatory laws in place at that time that restricted Chinese immigration, a situation that does not exist today.

      The court’s interpretation of the 14th Amendment as extending to the children of legal, noncitizens was incorrect, according to the text and legislative history of the amendment. But even under that holding, citizenship was not extended to the children of illegal aliens—only permanent, legal residents.

      It is just plain wrong to claim that the children born of parents temporarily in the country as students or tourists are automatically U.S. citizens: They do not meet the 14th Amendment’s jurisdictional allegiance obligations. They are, in fact, subject to the political jurisdiction (and allegiance) of the country of their parents. The same applies to the children of illegal aliens because children born in the United States to foreign citizens are citizens of their parents’ home country.

      Federal law offers them no help either. U.S. immigration law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) simply repeats the language of the 14th Amendment, including the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

      The State Department has erroneously interpreted that statute to provide passports to anyone born in the United States, regardless of whether their parents are here illegally and regardless of whether the applicant meets the requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. Accordingly, birthright citizenship has been implemented by executive fiat, not because it is required by federal law or the Constitution.

      We are only one of a very small number of countries that provides birthright citizenship, and we do so based not upon the requirements of federal law or the Constitution, but based upon an erroneous executive interpretation. Congress should clarify the law according to the original meaning of the 14th Amendment and reverse this practice.

      Originally published by Fox News in 2011

      This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

      Like

    • glendl says:

      EXCEPTIONS:
      Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

      “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

      This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

      “[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws, but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…”
      {The above is the main point, below is the entire writing.}

      Original intent of the 14th Amendment

      The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

      “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.”

      Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

      The United States did not limit immigration in 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. Thus there were, by definition, no illegal immigrants and the issue of citizenship for children of those here in violation of the law was nonexistent. Granting of automatic citizenship to children of illegal alien mothers is a recent and totally inadvertent and unforeseen result of the amendment and the Reconstructionist period in which it was ratified.

      Free! Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

      Senator Jacob Howard worked closely with Abraham Lincoln in drafting and passing the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which abolished slavery. He also served on the Senate Joint Committee on Reconstruction, which drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

      “Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

      This understanding was reaffirmed by Senator Edward Cowan, who stated:

      “[A foreigner in the United States] has a right to the protection of the laws; but he is not a citizen in the ordinary acceptance of the word…”

      The phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.
      Supreme Court decisions

      The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

      Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called “Slaughter-House cases” [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase “subject to its jurisdiction” was interpreted to exclude “children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.” In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”

      The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe “direct and immediate allegiance” to the U.S. and be “completely subject” to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

      Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

      The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
      (a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
      (b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.

      In 1898, the Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court case10,11, 16 once again, in a ruling based strictly on the 14th Amendment, concluded that the status of the parents was crucial in determining the citizenship of the child. The current misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment is based in part upon the presumption that the Wong Kim Ark ruling encompassed illegal aliens. In fact, it did not address the children of illegal aliens and non-immigrant aliens, but rather determined an allegiance for legal immigrant parents based on the meaning of the word domicil(e). Since it is inconceivable that illegal alien parents could have a legal domicile in the United States, the ruling clearly did not extend birthright citizenship to children of illegal alien parents. Indeed, the ruling strengthened the original intent of the 14th Amendment.

      The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be between 300,000 and 700,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965. (See consequences.)

      American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.

      For more information, see:

      1. P.A. Madison, Former Research Fellow in Constitutional Studies, The UnConstitutionality of Citizenship by Birth to Non-Americans (February 1, 2005)

      2. Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D., Esq., Illegal Aliens and American Medicine The Journal of the American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 10 Number 1 (Spring 2005)

      3. Al Knight, Track ‘anchor babies’, Denver Post (September 11, 2002)

      4. Al Knight, Change U.S. law on anchor babies, Denver Post (June 22, 2005)

      5. Tom DeWeese, The Mexican Fifth Column (January 27, 2003)

      6. Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens (Federation for American Immigration Reform)

      7. Tom DeWeese, “The Outrages of the Mexican Invasion” (American policy Center)

      8. P.A. Madison, Alien Birthright Citizenship: A Fable That Lives Through Ignorance The Federalist Blog (December 17, 2005)

      9. Dr. John C. Eastman, Professor of Law, Chapman University School of Law, Director, The Claremont Institute Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, Dual Citizenship, Birthright Citizenship, and the Meaning of Sovereignty – Testimony, U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and Claims (September 29, 2005)

      10. William Buchanan, HR-73 — Protecting America’s Sovereignty, The Social Contract (Fall, 1999) – includes discussion of the related Wong Kim Ark 1898 Supreme Court case

      11. Charles Wood, Losing Control of the Nation’s Future — Part Two — Birthright Citizenship and Illegal Aliens, The Social Contract (Winter, 2005) – includes discussion of the related Wong Kim Ark court case

      12. U.S. Supreme Court ELK v. WILKINS, 112 U.S. 94 (Findlaw, 1884)

      13. U.S. Supreme Court Slaughter-House cases (‘Lectric Law Library, 1873)

      14. Jacob M. Howard, Wikipedia.

      15. A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 – 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session Page 2890 of 3840.

      16. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Justia.com.
      Next: Misinterpretation Home

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.