NY Hotel Offers “Anchor Baby” Package

For Advertising Info, Write.
rwnews@blogads.com

Premium Left blogad

Left Blog Ad

Permalinks

NY Hotel Offers “Anchor Baby” Package

Written By : William Teach

Perhaps it is high time to revamp the 14th Amendment to stop this kind of craziness. It made sense when passed post-Civil War. In today’s society, it needs to have a rider, something like “as of (the date that it is passed), no baby born to non-US citizens shall be granted US citizenship.”

A New York hotel is staking its claim to have invented a new hospitality niche – birth tourism. The Marmara Manhattan offers “an exclusive package for new mothers that wish to give birth in the USA”, with the additional bonus of the newborn child gaining US citizenship.

The hotel, which is part of the Turkish hospitality chain, exploits the 14th amendment to the US constitution, which states that all children born on American soil “are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”.

The Marmara Manhattan, which is located in New York’s Upper East Side, told The Times: “What we offer is simply a one-bedroom suite accommodation for $5,100, plus taxes, for a month, with airport transfer, baby cradle and a gift set for the mother.” There are also medical fees of about £20,500.

However the price is a cheap and easy one to pay for US citizenship. Many will eventually use the newborn – known as an “anchor baby” – as a stepping stone for the immigration of extended family.

As has been said time and time again, illegal immigrants are not simply Mexicans. They are from all over Central and South America. They are from the Caribbean. They are from Muslim countries. From Africa. And not all of them are good people. In this case, the target is people from Hong Kong, Turkey, and South Korea.

Meanwhile, the unhinged and illegal alien supporting Arizona Republic newspaper is all worried about what may happen to the housing market if all the illegals leave. Of course, they throw in “legal residents” as a sop, but, we all know their concerns.

ElvenPhoenix

The 14th Amendment does NOT grant birthright citizenship to anyone born in the US. What it says is:

Section 1. 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.

Illegal aliens are not “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”, as they are not here legally. It does not take another amendment or any addition to this amendment to change it – just a court and legal system who will be bound by the amendment as written.

coolczech

That's an incorrect intepretation, ElevenPhoenix: if an illegal commits a crime in the USA, he most certainly IS “subject to the jurisdiction” of this country and if caught will be arrested and brought to American jurisprudence (the definition of “jurisdiction.”)

The only example of someone in the USA and not subject to our jurisdiction – whether here legally or not – would be diplomats. And even then, one has to wonder if the baby qualifies in that instance as a “diplomat.”

I think the point of the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause is to rule out citizenship for those born to foreigners in US territory under occupation.

I'm no fan of illegal immigration, but have to wonder about the wisdom of doing away with citizenship based on place of birth: kids born to an illegal played no part in the decision to come here illegally. If they receive US citizenship, one would think – unless American White Liberal “Educators” get a hold of them and teach how how “oppressed” they are in school – they will grow up as Americans. Given the low middle class birth rate, we need all the baby Americans we can get.

baoxian

Exactly. There's nothing in the Constitution that says the baby has to become an anchor. Chain migration can be ended by legislation, and a minor child's citizenship really doesn't matter anyways. It doesn't Constitutionally entitle the parents to live in the US, and it's the child's choice to maintain US citizenship or give it up for another country when they turn 18.

The intent of the Founders should be good enough to keep birthright citizenship. But we can legislatively do away with the rest of the nonsense, which is really the source of the problems anyways.

gfchicago

Question for you guys, wasn't it Ted Kennedy that started the chain migration by a bill that he wrote and was passed?

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

Cool that's no necessarily true, non-citizens are not subject to US jurisdiction for all topics or subject to all laws while here illegally. Citizenship is based on the laws of the parents home country, that's a fairly universal interpretation of law internationally. That's why US citizenship laws allow persons born over seas to claim US citizenship if their parents are citizens. The problem with the clause is literally an interpretation of the 14th by SCOTUS or another court, I don't remember which. But there was a specific case that changed this to allow anchor babies.
Christopher_Taylor

Czech is right, citizen or not, you are subject to the jurisdiction of a nation you are in. You are not somehow exempt from the laws simply because you aren't a citizen. The very fact that some are called illegal aliens proves that point.

http://www.patriotpost.com bthewolf

there are exceptions to every rule, and the citizenship status of babies is one of them. Take your pregnant wife to Mexico, Canada, or Britain, and have the baby there, is the child automatically citizen of that nation, NO! And neither should children born in the US to non-citizens be so, illegal or not.

Otherwise why do our laws grant citizenship to babies born over seas to US citizens. If that's so then unless the law specifies otherwise, the child is subject to the laws of citzenship of the parents legal home.

Christopher_Taylor

Sure, but the exceptions are based on the law of the area. US Law makes it work that way here, not other places. Still I laid out how we could approach this without changing the law at all. below.

Rose

NOT IN TERMS OF CITIZENSHIP! Just because we can prosecute for crimes committed here isn't the REQUIREMENT FOR CITIZENSHIP!

This interpretation came from Democrats trying to overload the system of entitlements and is not in existence anywhere else! So how is anyone harmed by RIGHTING IT TO ORIGINAL INTENT to cover SLAVES SET FREE after the Civil War! When those slaves were formerly LEGAL SLAVES,
It didn't cover ILLEGAL SLAVES. It covered EMANCIPATED slaves.

Rose

AMEN!
It was only a bureaucrat policy rule, NEVER a LAW, NEVER Constitutional.
Just Dim BLEEDING OUT of the taxpayers.

UFKA_Smithwick

Funny how folks from other countries with far more restrictive immigration laws feel the need to “teach us a lesson” about tolerance.

You'd be hard pressed to find a country more generous to immigrants than the US, particularly to illegal immigrants. However every single country seems to feel confident lecturing us on our obligation to house their displaced poor and uneducated citizens.
Christopher_Taylor

The 14th amendment does not need to be amended or changed, for this at least (its over broad in its wording, but not problematic in this particular case). I've posted this solution over and over again, maybe some day someone will take it up and make it policy:

Simply rule that while children born in the US are US citizens, they can be deported with their parents. Once they reach the age of 18 they can choose to return to the US as a citizen on their own but their parents are not somehow automatically grandfathered into the system simply by having a child here.

Problem solved.

Rose

NO!
They are not entitled to citizenship.
PERIOD. Not at birth, not at 18.

That is a mighty NEW interpretation, it has no credibility. It's sole purpose is leaching the taxpayers and nothing else. REMOVE IT.

NO NITPICKING.

Christopher_Taylor

That's not new, its been US law for over 200 years that if someone is born in the US, they are a US citizen. Even the 14th amendment has been around for a long time, its not new either. I can see the argument for removing this particular clause, but its not rational to argue that this is new somehow.

Rose

NOT THE ANCHOR BABY RULE! THAT interpretation through bureaucrats is only a few decades old.

“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.
Senator Jacob Howard, Co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, 1866.

Rose

No other nation has it, MEXICO doesn't have it – IT IS ILLEGITIMATE!
Vote it out!!! All it ever was was a DIM attempt to PAD THE WELFARE AND ENTITLEMENT SLUSH FUNDS and drain tax payers of spending power and NO OTHER REASON!
They had NO humanitarian purposes, ulterior or overt!

Cut it out and get the budget back under control.
Rose

Several other nations have already fixed their Constitution with similar wordings – intended to cover former slaves only! MISINTERPRETATIONS by bureaucrats with NO FIELTY to their own nation have made such broad use of what THEY called “vagueries”, which were plain as daylight to the common understanding of the day, and well-documented so.
WASP_pride

Given the low middle class birth rate, we need all the baby Americans we can get.

Maybe if middle and working class Americans' wages weren't being depressed by immigration, maybe if housing prices were't driven sky high by, in part, demand from immigrants, then the 'middle class' could afford to have more kids.
http://merchant.auctivacommerce.com/s16220/Philadelphia-Eagles-Jersey-10-DeSean-Jackson-Jersey-Green-NFL-Jersey-P1538266.aspx DeSean Jackson Jersey

awesome , very . I like it very much. I come acoss this blog by yahoo search engine. I would read your site monthly and forward it to my relatives. Please keep it fresh. Keep on the good work. – A blog lover

If I Was Your President (Boyfriend Spoof)

Premium Right Ads

Blogads Right

Previous Features

40 Of The Most Bad-Ass, Masculine, Manly, Alpha Male Quotes Of All Time

Why Men Are Becoming Wimpy, Video Game Playing Slackers Who Don’t Want To Get Married

Horror You Will Never Get Out Of Your Brain Again: Bronies

The 10 Best Obama Ate A Dog Images From Around The Web

User Info

Features

Archives Best of RWN Humor John Hawkins Interviews Quotes Special to RWN