Chinese women who are paying to deliver their babies here so they'll be U.S [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Chinese women who are paying to deliver their babies here so they'll be U.S


pipedreams
12-01-2012, 09:33
"Chino Hills residents are complaining about a neighborhood house allegedly full of pregnant Chinese women who are paying to deliver their babies here so they'll be U.S. citizens. Andrea Fujii reports."

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/8021063-chino-hills-residents-plan-to-protest-against-maternity-hotel/

ysr_racer
12-01-2012, 09:35
Yep, welcome to So Cal, the land of anchor babies.

Patchman
12-01-2012, 09:37
This has been going on for years. Not just in the U.S. but also Australia, New Zealand and many other places, including Hong Kong!

fnfalman
12-01-2012, 14:09
Anchor babies ain't just for Mexicans.

KommieforniaGlocker
12-01-2012, 14:12
"Chino Hills residents are complaining about a neighborhood house allegedly full of pregnant Chinese women who are paying to deliver their babies here so they'll be U.S. citizens. Andrea Fujii reports."

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/8021063-chino-hills-residents-plan-to-protest-against-maternity-hotel/

ROFL!! 85 Percent of Chino Hills is made of Mexican Anchor Babies

TK-421
12-01-2012, 14:15
This is exactly why I think we need to remove that part that says kids born here are US citizens, and we need to change it to kids who are born here, and both parents are US citizens, will become US citizens. Anybody else will be citizens of the same country their parents are, and not US citizens.

LASTRESORT20
12-01-2012, 14:24
Anchor babies ain't just for Mexicans.


You got that right...the gate is open




http://www.whyyoushouldworry.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/open-gate-2.jpg

devildog2067
12-01-2012, 14:26
This is exactly why I think we need to remove that part that says kids born here are US citizens, and we need to change it to kids who are born here, and both parents are US citizens, will become US citizens. Anybody else will be citizens of the same country their parents are, and not US citizens.

And while we're at it, let's change that annoying part about the "right to keep and bear arms."

After all, the world has changed.

:upeyes:

It behooves us to be careful when we start talking about changing the parts of the Constitution that we don't like.

cgwahl
12-01-2012, 14:28
Recall some reports last year of this happening in the San Diego area too. I think it was mostly Koreans though.

Another one I've heard of are hotels where you can give birth in. You check in for a month or two and they have doctors/nurses to deliver the babies. I might be remembering it incorrectly, but am pretty sure it was a variation of this.

HollowHead
12-01-2012, 14:29
And while we're at it, let's change that annoying part about the "right to keep and bear arms."

After all, the world has changed.

:upeyes:

It behooves us to be careful when we start talking about changing the parts of the Constitution that we don't like.

Dead ****ing spot on. HH

Dennis in MA
12-01-2012, 14:33
And while we're at it, let's change that annoying part about the "right to keep and bear arms."

After all, the world has changed.

:upeyes:

It behooves us to be careful when we start talking about changing the parts of the Constitution that we don't like.

Looks like its time to fix the first am. too. Lol

The Fist Of Goodness
12-01-2012, 14:39
Recall some reports last year of this happening in the San Diego area too. I think it was mostly Koreans though.


Another one I've heard of are hotels where you can give birth in. You check in for a month or two and they have doctors/nurses to deliver the babies. I might be remembering it incorrectly, but am pretty sure it was a variation of this.

Pilots from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, UAE, and other countries used to set their pregnant wives up in hotels around Newark airport for a few weeks so they could deliver in US hospitals. Then they would fly back to their homes with their anchor baby and his US birth certificate.

We had alot of calls about it immediately after 9-11. It probably still happens.

posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire (http://www.outdoorhub.com/mobile/)

pipedreams
12-01-2012, 14:49
ROFL!! 85 Percent of Chino Hills is made of Mexican Anchor Babies

So you live in Chino Hills? The Chino Hills I remember is nice homes build on former rolling ranch land.
Most of the homes are 20 years old or less .

Average Household Income $106,825
Average Household size 3.41

PaulMason
12-01-2012, 15:05
"Chino Hills residents are complaining about a neighborhood house allegedly full of pregnant Chinese women who are paying to deliver their babies here so they'll be U.S. citizens. Andrea Fujii reports."

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/video/8021063-chino-hills-residents-plan-to-protest-against-maternity-hotel/

This has been going on for years. In NYC there is a hotel that foreign pregnant women stay at, when ready to deliver they go to the hospital. Then the child gets a SS no. The Koreans do the same thing in Guam (I think).

Let's say there is political problems or famine in China. The Chinese baby/child/adult born in the USA can come to the USA buy a house and then send for their parents/extended family to come live with him. The parents/extended family might be illegal if they overstay but they have to be found and deported - not likely.

Carrys
12-01-2012, 15:13
And while we're at it, let's change that annoying part about the "right to keep and bear arms."

After all, the world has changed.

:upeyes:

It behooves us to be careful when we start talking about changing the parts of the Constitution that we don't like.

Dead ****ing spot on. HH

You knotheads act like anything that isn't right or that a lot of folks don't like is so.....so wrong.

I could do with the outlawing of such a thing, no matter what y'all believe.

Now just how racist, mean, and bad does that make me............in your eyes of course?

IMO, nothing wrong with a woman having her baby here if the cards fall that way. But......for them to intentionally come/hide here so that they can have a baby that will make the whole family welcome.

No.:wavey:

devildog2067
12-01-2012, 15:24
You knotheads act like anything that isn't right or that a lot of folks don't like is so.....so wrong.

What the hell are you talking about?

I could do with the outlawing of such a thing, no matter what y'all believe.

I could too. I think it's wrong and it's a stupid loophole.

That's not the point. What I "feel" about it doesn't dictate whether or not it's legal. The Constitution does.

Now just how racist, mean, and bad does that make me............in your eyes of course?

Again--what the hell are you talking about? I'm on the same side of this issue as you are. Again, the only difference is, instead of allowing how I "feel" about it to make me spout off about how we should "remove that part" of the Constitution.

Yes, it's true that the Founders probably never imagined it would be so easy to pop over to the US and stay for a couple of weeks when they put jus sanguinis in the Constitution. But it's equally true that the Founders probably never imagined machine guns, either. When we start talking about "what the Founders would have done" it's a very slippery slope.

countrygun
12-01-2012, 15:31
What the hell are you talking about?



I could too. I think it's wrong and it's a stupid loophole.

That's not the point. What I "feel" about it doesn't dictate whether or not it's legal. The Constitution does.



Again--what the hell are you talking about? I'm on the same side of this issue as you are. Again, the only difference is, instead of allowing how I "feel" about it to make me spout off about how we should "remove that part" of the Constitution.

Yes, it's true that the Founders probably never imagined it would be so easy to pop over to the US and stay for a couple of weeks when they put jus sanguinis in the Constitution. But it's equally true that the Founders probably never imagined machine guns, either. When we start talking about "what the Founders would have done" it's a very slippery slope.

FYI it isn't a part of "The Constitution" proper, it exists as part of the 14th Amendment and, like prohibition, is subject to repeal without any more "damage" than repealing prohibition.

HollowHead
12-01-2012, 15:32
What the hell are you talking about?


One of these days somebody needs to start a "Write Like Carrys Contest" thread. His ramblings sound like someone tossed James Joyce, Thomas Pinchon and William Burroughs novels into a Cuisinart. HH

devildog2067
12-01-2012, 15:34
FYI it isn't a part of "The Constitution" proper, it exists as part of the 14th Amendment and, like prohibition, is subject to repeal without any more "damage" than repealing prohibition.

And the "right to keep and bear arms" isn't part of "the Constitution proper" either, it's "just" part of the Second Amendment.

pipedreams
12-01-2012, 15:37
FYI it isn't a part of "The Constitution" proper, it exists as part of the 14th Amendment and, like prohibition, is subject to repeal without any more "damage" than repealing prohibition.
This.................

countrygun
12-01-2012, 15:38
And the "right to keep and bear arms" isn't part of "the Constitution proper" either, it's "just" part of the Second Amendment.

I think the original BOR has a rather special place in the scheme of things, but you are free, if you like, to say that the repeal of prohibition was unconstitutional and should still be the law of the land if you like.

devildog2067
12-01-2012, 15:43
I think the original BOR has a rather special place in the scheme of things, but you are free, if you like, to say that the repeal of prohibition was unconstitutional and should still be the law of the land if you like.

I neither said nor implied that the repeal of Prohibition was unconstitutional.

Why is it so difficult for people to simply read what is written?

What I said was, when you start talking about changing the parts of the Constitution you don't agree with, that's a very slippery slope.

countrygun
12-01-2012, 15:47
I neither said nor implied that the repeal of Prohibition was unconstitutional.

Why is it so difficult for people to simply read what is written?

What I said was, when you start talking about changing the parts of the Constitution you don't agree with, that's a very slippery slope.

Well I guess when prohibition was repealed by the 21st Amenment we were in grave danger of losing our 2nd Amendment rights then?

:upeyes:

Carrys
12-01-2012, 15:49
What the hell are you talking about?



When we start talking about "what the Founders would have done" it's a very slippery slope.

You truly don't know?

Well, somethin' tells me you probably don't. It's amazing how dim someone who is seen as rather bright can be.

I'm not talking about what the founders would have done then.....I'm talking 'bout what I would do now.

Get it?:wavey:

devildog2067
12-01-2012, 15:54
You truly don't know?


Not even a little.

You see, here's what *I* said:
It behooves us to be careful when we start talking about changing the parts of the Constitution that we don't like.

I could do with the outlawing of such a thing, no matter what y'all believe.

Now just how racist, mean, and bad does that make me............in your eyes of course?

You see how those two things don't follow at all?

You assumed something about my position on the issue, that I'm somehow in favor of it, that I somehow think people who oppose it are "bad" or "racist." I said or implied absolutely nothing of the kind.

People who jump to all kinds of conclusions that aren't supported by evidence, well, we generally call those folks "crazy."

I'm not talking about what the founders would have done then.....I'm talking 'bout what I would do now.

Get it?:wavey:

I do get it.

And my point remains: changing this would require a Constitutional amendment. We would be going through the amendment process expressly in order to take rights away from people.

That seems like not a good path to start heading down, if you ask me.

countrygun
12-01-2012, 15:57
If the antis have an eye on amending the Constitution to afffect the 2nd Amendment, altering the 14th won't have a single thing to do with it. They are seperate issues. It isn't like changing one Amendment unlocks all of them.

It sounds more like a scare tactic threat to KEEP the 14th from being changed.

pipedreams
12-01-2012, 17:04
And my point remains: changing this would require a Constitutional amendment. We would be going through the amendment process expressly in order to take rights away from people.

That seems like not a good path to start heading down, if you ask me.

We would only be taking rights away from people not here legally or visiting foreigners that are taking advantage of the 14th for their personal gain which shouldn't be allowed.

Flying-Dutchman
12-01-2012, 17:18
And the founding fathers never envisioned our huge welfare magnet either so one way or another an adjustment needs to be made.

Either cut off this loophole or end the welfare state.

Before around 1914 there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. They were free to come and they were free to starve; no taxpayer funded welfare free stuff.

countrygun
12-01-2012, 17:24
And the founding fathers never envisioned our huge welfare magnet either so one way or another an adjustment needs to be made.

Either cut off this loophole or end the welfare state.

Before around 1914 there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant. They were free to come and they were free to starve; no taxpayer funded welfare free stuff.

Once again, the "Founding Fathers" didn't write the 14th Amendment anymore than they wrote the 18th.

Flying-Dutchman
12-01-2012, 17:28
If the antis have an eye on amending the Constitution to afffect the 2nd Amendment, altering the 14th won't have a single thing to do with it. They are seperate issues. It isn't like changing one Amendment unlocks all of them.

It sounds more like a scare tactic threat to KEEP the 14th from being changed.
Of course, this has nothing to do with any other Amendment.

The Constitution is to be amended; better than change from a liberal Supreme Court.

No worries for those who want to see the floodgates wide open and the Country overrun with new Democrat voters; it would be a long shot to repeal the 14 Amendment as we couldn't even get rid of Obama.

Flying-Dutchman
12-01-2012, 17:30
Once again, the "Founding Fathers" didn't write the 14th Amendment anymore than they wrote the 18th.
Of course, my mistake.

RedTop
12-01-2012, 17:35
Once again, the "Founding Fathers" didn't write the 14th Amendment anymore than they wrote the 18th.

One can also argue that the 14th Amendment was passed under a state of duress.

countrygun
12-01-2012, 17:36
Of course, my mistake.

I didn't mean to be snarky, just that the 14th is no more immune from repeal than the 18th was. But ,as you have pointed out, the Democrats see new voters in every immigrant because they convince them that the republicans hate them. Despite the fact that it was a Republican president recently that wanted immigaration reform, that fact gets drowned out in the liberal chanting, and new immigrants don't know about it so they are prime fodder for the Democrats to indoctrinate.

TK-421
12-01-2012, 18:04
And my point remains: changing this would require a Constitutional amendment. We would be going through the amendment process expressly in order to take rights away from people.

Umm, no we wouldn't. To have rights under the US constitution, doesn't it say you have to be a citizen of the US? We wouldn't be taking rights away from anybody, because the people taking advantage of the loophole aren't US citizens, so they don't have rights under the US Constitution.

We would just be closing off a much needed loophole.

Give me one good reason as to why children born in the US should be US citizens if their parents aren't US citizens.

devildog2067
12-01-2012, 18:06
Umm, no we wouldn't. To have rights under the US constitution, doesn't it say you have to be a citizen of the US?
Seriously?

Have you never taken a civics class?

No, it most certainly does NOT say that. If you're a foreign national or stateless person, you still have rights under the Constitution.

Henry's Dad
12-01-2012, 18:38
Let's take a look at what we're arguing about:

14th Amendment, sec. I:
"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."

Note the bold italics. There are two requirements: be born or naturalized here, and be subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

The idea that just being born here gave you citizenship, regardless of circumstance, was never a solidly settled idea based on the text of the 14th amendment. It was accepted, it seems, only because no one objected at the time.

From the all-knowing Wikipedia:

There are varying interpretations of the original intent of Congress, based on statements made during the congressional debate over the amendment.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-6)[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-nyt96-7) During the original debate over the amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard) of Michigan—the author of the Citizenship Clause[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-Salon-8)—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1866), namely, that it excludes Native Americans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_the_United_States) who maintain their tribal ties and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-9) According to historian Glenn W. LaFantasie of Western Kentucky University (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Kentucky_University), "A good number of his fellow senators supported his view of the citizenship clause."[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-Salon-8) Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-10)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-11) However, concerning children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three Senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Committee_on_the_Judiciary) Lyman Trumbull (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman_Trumbull), the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well as President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) Andrew Johnson (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Johnson), asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no Senator offered a contrary opinion.[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-trumbullcowan-12)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-13)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-14)

JohnnyReb
12-01-2012, 18:41
So as long as its economically beneficial to cross the border and have babies, it will continue to happen.

rauldduke1979
12-01-2012, 19:09
Let's say there is political problems or famine in China. The Chinese baby/child/adult born in the USA can come to the USA buy a house and then send for their parents/extended family to come live with him. The parents/extended family might be illegal if they overstay but they have to be found and deported - not likely.

Yep.

China in the 20th century: Boxer Rebellion, Communist Rebellion, Japanese Invasion, More Communist Rebellion, Great Famine (aka Great Leap Forward), "Cultural Revolution", Gang of Four = quasi coup, then it was "this" close to hitting the fan in 89 (Tienanmen Square, etc).

I'd say if you're a rich Chinese person, you'd be nuts not to have a couple of plan "Bs".