Trump administration takes aim at pregnant travelers with new "birth tourism" rule

[1srelluc]

Trump administration takes aim at pregnant travelers with new "birth tourism" rule

The new State Department rule says it doesn't believe visiting the U.S. "for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child, by giving birth in the [U.S.], ... is a legitimate activity for pleasure or of a recreational nature."

www.cbsnews.com

Politics News: Political parties, election news, policies, and news from the Biden administration from CBS News
The Trump administration on Thursday unveiled a new rule intended to curtail what the administration calls "birth tourism." It would give the government more power to deny certain visas to women if officials have "reason to believe" they intend to travel to the U.S. for the primary purpose of giving birth to a child in the country to obtain U.S. citizenship for the child.

According to the State Department rule in the Federal Register, pregnant women who are traveling to the U.S. for medical treatment have to provide their treatment arrangements and demonstrate their ability to pay for the treatment and any other associated costs.


Good, nip it in the bud......Go be preggers someplace else.

No need for any preggers woman to be given a visa.....Require a pregnancy test too.

I'd even expand on that, no foreign female to be given a visa longer than six months, say for foreign students. They would have to reapply and take a pregnancy test to extend the visa.

Found to be preggers, then away they go.

Our country needs to tighten-up.

 

[odanny]

I never agreed with automatic citizenship if you are born here, if you are here illegally and you give birth here your child will be (should be) a citizen of the same country as you are.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Trump administration takes aim at pregnant travelers with new "birth tourism" rule

The new State Department rule says it doesn't believe visiting the U.S. "for the primary purpose of obtaining U.S. citizenship for a child, by giving birth in the [U.S.], ... is a legitimate activity for pleasure or of a recreational nature."

www.cbsnews.com

Politics News: Political parties, election news, policies, and news from the Biden administration from CBS News
The Trump administration on Thursday unveiled a new rule intended to curtail what the administration calls "birth tourism." It would give the government more power to deny certain visas to women if officials have "reason to believe" they intend to travel to the U.S. for the primary purpose of giving birth to a child in the country to obtain U.S. citizenship for the child.

According to the State Department rule in the Federal Register, pregnant women who are traveling to the U.S. for medical treatment have to provide their treatment arrangements and demonstrate their ability to pay for the treatment and any other associated costs.


Good, nip it in the bud......Go be preggers someplace else.

No need for any preggers woman to be given a visa.....Require a pregnancy test too.

I'd even expand on that, no foreign female to be given a visa longer than six months, say for foreign students. They would have to reapply and take a pregnancy test to extend the visa.

Found to be preggers, then away they go.

Our country needs to tighten-up.

I'm willing to bet that those officials will more likely officials find "reason to believe" they intend to travel to the U.S. for the primary purpose of giving birth to a child in the country to obtain U.S. citizenship for the child if the women is from certain countries, has a dark skin tone and /or is Muslim .

 

[1srelluc]

I'm willing to bet that those officials will more likely officials find "reason to believe" they intend to travel to the U.S. for the primary purpose of giving birth to a child in the country to obtain U.S. citizenship for the child if the women is from certain countries, has a dark skin tone and /or is Muslim .

A pregnancy test upon arrival solves that problem, no matter where they are from.

Talk about a cheap preventative, they are around $3.00.

Even if a few slip through with a false negative the country will be far ahead of the game.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

A pregnancy test upon arrival solves that problem, no matter where they are from.

Talk about a cheap preventative, they are around $3.00.

Even if a few slip through with a false negative the country will be far ahead of the game.

Far ahead of what game exactly? We need young blood in this country.

 

[1srelluc]

Far ahead of what game exactly? We need young blood in this country.

Then they can wait in line and immigrate properly/legaly.....What's so fuckin' hard to understand about that?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Then they can wait in line and immigrate properly/legaly.....What's so fuckin' hard to understand about that?

Whats so ******* hard to understand about the 14th amendment ?

 

[1srelluc]

Whats so ******* hard to understand about the 14th amendment ?

That's why you nip it in the bud with a pregnancy test when they arrive......Any more herp-derp excuses?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's why you nip it in the bud with a pregnancy test when they arrive......Any more herp-derp excuses?

Is that supposed to be an answer? Nip what in the bud. A new citizen ? Why is that so awful? I'm sick of this xenophobic bullshit

 

[1srelluc]

Is that supposed to be an answer? Nip what in the bud. A new citizen ? Why is that so awful? I'm sick of this xenophobic bullshit

Meh, sucks to be you.

 

[mamooth]

Trump cultists just don't seem to get that their welfare is largely financed by immigrants, who pay into the system but get nothing out.

 

[Stryder50]

Whats so ******* hard to understand about the 14th amendment ?

Many of us wonder that all the time.
How could so many Leftards mis-interpret it.
It does not allow "birthright citizenship" to persons who are not already citizens or here in process of becoming a legal citizen.

If you are here without a passport and visa, not only are you here criminally, but you remain under the jurisdiction of the nation you came from. Which is why you can be deported.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Many of us wonder that all the time.
How could so many Leftards mis-interpret it.
It does not allow "birthright citizenship" to persons who are not already citizens or here in process of becoming a legal citizen.

If you are here without a passport and visa, not only are you here criminally, but you remain under the jurisdiction of the nation you came from. Which is why you can be deported.

And it says all of that-where / Exactly??

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Far ahead of what game exactly? We need young blood in this country.

Birth tourism provides no young blood.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Is that supposed to be an answer? Nip what in the bud. A new citizen ? Why is that so awful? I'm sick of this xenophobic bullshit

Yes it is quite awful since the birth tourist takes their child home and raises them in their home country. The American citizenship is used only when there is a financial benefit.

China has encouraged birth tourism to the US for decades. There are millions of American born Chinese loyalists.

 

[Stryder50]

And it says all of that-where / Exactly??

That's the extension of the language and intention from 150, almost 160 years ago.
FYI, photo ID, passports, visas didn't exist back then.
Read the comment by the author of the Amendment.

Meanwhile, where EXACTLY, does it say any foreign national can have their children born here become USA citizens, if the parent still claims citizenship of their land of origin. ???

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Many of us wonder that all the time.
How could so many Leftards mis-interpret it.
It does not allow "birthright citizenship" to persons who are not already citizens or here in process of becoming a legal citizen.

If you are here without a passport and visa, not only are you here criminally, but you remain under the jurisdiction of the nation you came from. Which is why you can be deported.

You’re an arrogant ass. Laftards?! We are smart enough understand that there is in fact room for interpretation, and are willing to discuss that . On the other hand, you dismiss out of hand any competing point of view. That sort of ridged , blind appeal to authority logical fallacy is the antithesis of high intellectual functioning-so don’t be so quick with that “tard” shit.

You stated that “it does not allow "birthright citizenship" to persons who are not already citizens or here in process of becoming a legal citizen” Right you are. But it does not state otherwise either. In fact, it says nothing about immigration status or citizenship of the parents.

What it really comes down to is ones philosophy regarding the interpretation of the constitution .An originalist would point to the plain language of the amendment and would have to conclude that it literally means what it says. If you are born on US soil you are a citizen. Period.

A more expansive view of the Constitution would be that it is a living document and that the founders intended it to be adaptable to changing times. In that case, you might argue that the founders could not have anticipated the migrant issue that we now face and if they had, might have said something about immigration status. You could argue that the intent was completely different than what the plain reading appears to be and that that should be interpreted in a way that limits birthright citizenship,

But rather than taking all of that into consideration , you just pound you chest and bleat about how your right and that is that. Ironically, the originalist view of the constitution is generally the conservative interpretation while the living constitution is promoted by liberal, Apparently not so on this issue. Waite until it gets to SCOTUS and we get to see how Alito and Thomas deal with that inconvenient truth

You also made the inane and bizarre assertion that “If you are here without a passport and visa, not only are you here criminally, but you remain under the jurisdiction of the nation you came from.” So, you’re saying that if and undocumented person robs a bank or kills someone in the U.S. they are not subject to the jurisdiction and laws of this country? More proof that you have not applied much brain power to the subject . Clearly, you’re a Repub-TARD

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

You’re an arrogant ass. Laftards?! We are smart enough understand that there is in fact room for interpretation, and are will to discuss that . On the other hand, you dismiss out of hand any competing point of view. That sort of ridged , blind appeal to authority logical fallacy is the antithesis of high intellectual functioning-so don’t be so quick with that “tard” shit.

You stated that “it does not allow "birthright citizenship" to persons who are not already citizens or here in process of becoming a legal citizen” Right you are. But it does not state otherwise either. In fact, it says nothing about immigration status or citizenship of the parents.

What it really comes down to is ones philosophy regarding the interpretation of the constitution .An originalist would point to the plain language of the amendment and would have to conclude that it literally means what it says. If you are born on use soil you are a citizen. Period.

A more expansive view of the Constitution would be that it is a living document and that the founders intended it to be adaptable to changing times. In that case, you might argue that the founders could not have anticipated the migrant issue that we now face and if they had, might have said something about immigration status. You could argue that the intent was completely different than what the plain reading appears to be and that that should be interpreted in a way that limits birthright citizenship,

But rather than taking all of that into consideration , you just pound you chest and bleat about how your right and that is that. Ironically, the originalist view of the constitution is generally the conservative interpretation while the living constitution is promoted by liberal, Apparently not so on this issue. Waite until it gets to SCOTUS and we get to see how Alito and Thomas deal with that inconvenient truth

You also made the inane and bizarre assertion that “If you are here without a passport and visa, not only are you here criminally, but you remain under the jurisdiction of the nation you came from.” So, you’re saying that if and undocumented person robs a bank or kills someone in the U.S. they are not subject to the jurisdiction and laws of this country? More proof that you have not applied much brain power to the subject . Clearly, you’re a Repub-TARD

That's all you got Tard ? Stryder50 Fake news

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's all you got Tard ? Stryder50 Fake news

Well I can see what I'm dealing with here Stryder50 Not impressive