Yeah, because we should always strip rights away because some people do something we don't like with them, right? Huh...wait...does that mean we should get rid of guns because some people use them for wrong things? To be honest I think guns cause more trouble then "birth tourism" does, maybe we should deal with those rights first?
tulc(just a thought)
Why the false equivalencies?Yeah, because we should always strip rights away because some people do something we don't like with them, right? Huh...wait...does that mean we should get rid of guns because some people use them for wrong things? To be honest I think guns cause more trouble then "birth tourism" does, maybe we should deal with those rights first?
tulc(just a thought)
They are getting them as running a scam. From the article:
“The scam operators advertised their businesses in China, saying the U.S. had better air, better jobs, better schools and “the most attractive nationality,” prosecutors said.
Chinese government officials were among the clients, prosecutors said.
Some of the Chinese scammers even skipped out on their medical bills, according to the indictments unsealed Thursday.
“America’s way of life is not for sale,” said Joseph Macias, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations Los Angeles.”
Don’t know if you had the time to read the entire article linked in the OP.But still, none of that is illegal. To say "the U.S. had better air, better jobs, better schools and “the most attractive nationality,”" is an opinion no different than saying the gulf coast of Florida has the most attractive beaches in the world. Fully half of the people you say that to are going to disagree, but saying it isn't illegal.
There must be a law proscribing a specific behavior and then a person engaging in that behavior for there to be a crime. And so far, based on these press reports, I see no crime in this whatever.
But still, none of that is illegal. To say "the U.S. had better air, better jobs, better schools and “the most attractive nationality,”" is an opinion no different than saying the gulf coast of Florida has the most attractive beaches in the world. Fully half of the people you say that to are going to disagree, but saying it isn't illegal.
There must be a law proscribing a specific behavior and then a person engaging in that behavior for there to be a crime. And so far, based on these press reports, I see no crime in this whatever.
"false equivalencies"? How so? It's in the Constitution, it's a right and the suggestion is it needs to be curtailed because some people are not using it how you think it should be. Man, throw in a picture of Wayne LaPierre and something about "cold dead hand" and it could be an ad for the NRA!Why the false equivalencies?
You are comparing fraud with guns."false equivalencies"? How so? It's in the Constitution, it's a right and the suggestion is it needs to be curtailed because some people are not using it how you think it should be. Man, throw in a picture of Wayne LaPierre and something about "cold dead hand" and it could be an ad for the NRA!
tulc(is just sayn')
The government must enforce all its laws.Actually I'm comparing two rights that are in the Constitution, one of which has led to the deaths of thousands of people over the years and one that doesn't.
tulc(thought the comparison was quite accurate)
Now let’s find a valid comparison.Actually I'm comparing two rights that are in the Constitution, one of which has led to the deaths of thousands of people over the years and one that doesn't.
tulc(thought the comparison was quite accurate)
wouldn't it be better to change the laws surrounding "jus soli" with different criteria? it's really just a new world phenomena used initially to actually encourage immigrants. For the rest of the world's it actually a pretty rare thing to see and you don't have entitled citizenship just because you were born in the country.Federal prosecutors announced an indictment Thursday against 19 people accused of running “birth tourism” operations in Southern California that helped thousands of pregnant Chinese women visit the U.S. just in time to give birth — thus securing American citizenship for their children.
The Justice Department said it’s the first time the government has brought charges against such a business.
Women were charged up to $100,000, were arranged visitor visas, then kept in apartments here in order to give birth. Under U.S. birthright policy almost anyone born on American soil — no matter if it’s to an illegal immigrant, a legal visitor or a citizen — is automatically an American citizen.
More at link:
China ‘birth tourism’ operation prompts federal charges
Close the loop.
I can't imagine what they are charging these people with, other than perhaps lying on a visa application. According to the story some of the women stated on their application that they would only be here for "a Few Weeks", when they intended to stay a few months.
Other than that, this all seems to be perfectly legal.
I don't think this is what was intended when the 14th amendment was passed in 1866....in fact I have no doubt they would be shocked at the interpretation of it now.
There is a mechanism in place. It's called the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution in it's original intent.There's a mechanism to amend it. If you think this is a huge problem, that would be the way to go.
...uhmmm...it says "anyone born in the US is a citizen." It would seem the original intent was "if you're born here you're a citizen" What you're saying sounds an awful lot like someone trying to get around original intent.There is a mechanism in place. It's called the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution in it's original intent.
So...appoint activist judges who'll make laws from the bench?The way to go is to appoint conservative judges who will do so - as well as correct the abuses of liberal circuits like the 9th Court of Appeals.
It's estimated the top 5 "Big Oil" companies make $375,000,000 dollars a day in profits. While the Big Pharma companies made $515,000,000,000 dollars a year, 21% of which is profit. If this business gets to be that big? Then we might talk about it being called "big birthing tourism".Maybe our objection to those running that scheme would make sense to the socialists \ open border folks if it were phrased in terms they understand... simply call this "Big agency" like they do with "Big oil" \ "Big Pharma".
Maybe … just maybe … that would
The key word in the amendment is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."...uhmmm...it says "anyone born in the US is a citizen." It would seem the original intent was "if you're born here you're a citizen" What you're saying sounds an awful lot like someone trying to get around original intent.
No - appoint judges who will stand soundly against the activist judges who have and will undermine the concept of original intent.So...appoint activist judges who'll make laws from the bench?tulc(doesn't like the sound of that)
The key word in the amendment is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof...."
This does not include illegal aliens. The problem we see today with the invasion of these folks were not a "problem" when the Amendment was written and their abuses were not in view when the Amendment was written and passed.
The original intent of the amendment was to rectify the abuses associated with Dred Scott decision related to citizenship of X-slaves and other U.S. born persons subject to our tax system.
Every Constitutional scholar knows this as should any Supreme Court Judge who is in the slightest bit concerned with original intent.
No - appoint judges who will stand soundly against the activist judges who have and will undermine the concept of original intent.
But still, none of that is illegal. To say "the U.S. had better air, better jobs, better schools and “the most attractive nationality,”" is an opinion no different than saying the gulf coast of Florida has the most attractive beaches in the world. Fully half of the people you say that to are going to disagree, but saying it isn't illegal.
There must be a law proscribing a specific behavior and then a person engaging in that behavior for there to be a crime. And so far, based on these press reports, I see no crime in this whatever.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?