[pipedreams]

"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...ternity-hotel/

[ysr_racer]

Yep, welcome to So Cal, the land of anchor babies.

[Patchman]

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]

Anchor babies ain't just for Mexicans.

[KommieforniaGlocker]

Originally Posted by pipedreams

"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...ternity-hotel/

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

[TK-421]

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]

Originally Posted by fnfalman

Anchor babies ain't just for Mexicans.

You got that right...the gate is open

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by TK-421

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.



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

[cgwahl]

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]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

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.



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]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

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.



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]

Originally Posted by cgwahl

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

[pipedreams]

Originally Posted by KommieforniaGlocker

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]

Originally Posted by pipedreams

"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...ternity-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]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

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.



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

Originally Posted by HollowHead

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.

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Carrys

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]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

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]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

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]

Originally Posted by countrygun

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]

Originally Posted by countrygun

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]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

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]

Originally Posted by countrygun

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]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

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?

[Carrys]

Originally Posted by devildog2067

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?

[devildog2067]

Originally Posted by Carrys

You truly don't know?

Not even a little.

You see, here's what *I* said:

Originally Posted by devildog2067

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

Originally Posted by Carrys

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?

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.