Birth Tourism

National Review - The Corner ^ | March 16, 2010 | Mark Krikorian

[pogo101]

But what if the mom is legally present, temporarily, because we have given her a tourist visa? That’s what this is about.

As I said, "If mom’s a tourist, so is the kid." State Dept. can arrange routine brief extensions of the mother's visa (and, thereby, the newborn's implicit visa) for post-partum recovery.

[La Lydia]

But no, even if the mom is a tourist, the kid become a citizen. That’s the point. This needs to be changed.

[pogo101]

I agree. My initial post said that what most civilized countries do is accord the baby the same status as the mother-at-the-time-of-birth. And that in such a country, we wouldn’t have this problem, etc.

You somehow seem to have skipped over that part of my very short comment.

[La Lydia]

I agree that that we are among the uncivilized countries. We are in some very Third World, dubious company here, and we are paying for it. The others who grant birthright citizenship are:

Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Barbados Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Chile (children of transient foreigners or of foreign diplomats on assignment in Chile only upon request) Colombia Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Fiji Grenada Guatemala Guyana Honduras Jamaica Lesotho Malaysia Mexico Nicaragua Pakistan Panama Paraguay Peru Saint Christopher and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Trinidad and Tobago United States Uruguay and Venezuela.

[Cyber Ninja]

I was not clear. By example, USSR never had an open borders problem. Neither does Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, China, North Vietnam, etc.

European (soft) socialism is a different animal. Socialism there has not done enough damage such that they need to close their borders to keep people in.

[huldah1776]

Actually, the only reason I did post was because of the demographic question lurking in my mind. These anchor baby families should also be pro-family, hopefully willing to work?

[Tennessee Nana]

Good grief...