Westside Steve Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 Actually I'm good with this. I doubt that would be constitutionally feasible but... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order/1816666002/ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 He will circumvent congress again. This time the Supreme Court will brush him back due to it being a violation of the 14th Amendment. Conservatives will then run around screaming about how we should do something about the Constitution and those amendments they don’t like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 22, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 15 minutes ago, LogicIsForSquares said: He will circumvent congress again. This time the Supreme Court will brush him back due to it being a violation of the 14th Amendment. Conservatives will then run around screaming about how we should do something about the Constitution and those amendments they don’t like. That's true. And that's one I don't like. Law of unexpected consequences. Then again there are plenty open my message that has been chipped away at to the point that they're unrecognizable. WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 Who knows? Obama issued an executive order with the Dream Act and he said when he signed it that he knew it was unconstitutional yet when Trump comes into office and tries to undo that unconstitutional executive order by Obama immediately the left goes judge shopping and files suit and an Obama appointed judge who acts like the executive order that Obama himself said he knew was unconstitutional is somehow the law of the land and can't be undone. Always before any executive order by a president of one administration could be undone by the next president of a new administration (because it isn't law until activist judges get involved) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Westside Steve said: Actually I'm good with this. I doubt that would be constitutionally feasible but... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order/1816666002/ So you are good with a president who makes his own declaration via executive order that the Constitution/Amendments/Supreme Court can just be ignored? See how far your standards have dropped for this clown? From the article: "Here we have a situation where the text of the Constitution is quite clear and the Supreme Court has interpreted it that way," Garrett Epps, a constitutional law professor at the University of Baltimore told USA TODAY. "So, for the president to assert that he can somehow overturn the text of the amendment and Supreme Court precedent by executive order is what we would call an extravagant claim." I would call it a dictatorship myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chemist Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 22, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 16 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said: So you are good with a president who makes his own declaration via executive order that the Constitution/Amendments/Supreme Court can just be ignored? See how far your standards have dropped for this clown? From the article: "Here we have a situation where the text of the Constitution is quite clear and the Supreme Court has interpreted it that way," Garrett Epps, a constitutional law professor at the University of Baltimore told USA TODAY. "So, for the president to assert that he can somehow overturn the text of the amendment and Supreme Court precedent by executive order is what we would call an extravagant claim." I would call it a dictatorship myself. Probably because you're confused as to what a dictator actually is. But executive orders are perfectly constitutional and have to go through the same process as any president who makes one. WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 21 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said: So you are good with a president who makes his own declaration via executive order that the Constitution/Amendments/Supreme Court can just be ignored? See how far your standards have dropped for this clown? From the article: "Here we have a situation where the text of the Constitution is quite clear and the Supreme Court has interpreted it that way," Garrett Epps, a constitutional law professor at the University of Baltimore told USA TODAY. "So, for the president to assert that he can somehow overturn the text of the amendment and Supreme Court precedent by executive order is what we would call an extravagant claim." I would call it a dictatorship myself. Was it a dictatorship when Obama issued his executive orders? He even issued one himself he said was unconstitutional but that didn't stop him from issuing it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 Texsag is just a hater. His emotional knee jerking is irrational. I'm sure he is enjoying his free obaMao phone. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldBrownsFan Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 19 minutes ago, calfoxwc said: Texsag is just a hater. His emotional knee jerking is irrational. I'm sure he is enjoying his free obaMao phone. I thought Tex, a retired counselor usually seemed level headed on most things but TDS can negatively affect anyone. But I have to admit I wonder about Tex's self professed conservative credentials when he voted for Hillary (that was bad) and Beto O'rourke (how does he square that circle with being conservative?) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 yeah, I don't get it. But the emotionalism of hard core liberals takes precedence over rational explanations of issues. The first sign, is their behavior doesn't match what they say. The second sign, is they constantly redefine/misuse common words to make them fit their false narratives. ObaMao said "if you want to keep your doctor,..." and it was admitted to have been a LIE. But, hard core emotionally twisted liberals call Pres Trump a liar. Why? because...he has ....er...orange skin? because they lost the election. ObaMao appointed "czars" all over our government to by pass Congress. But the libs loved ObaMao. He was going to give them free phones. But they call Pres Trump a "dictator" because.....they lost the election...? To liberals, words are just tools to be used to justify their emotions, and it doesn't matter how they redefine words to make the difference. They started making asses of themselves of the man made global warming hysteria...so they had to change it to "climate change". Ya, climate changes, so you can't argue with us anymore about mmgw ! LOL so stupid. but it goes on and on and on.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 16 minutes ago, The Gipper said: But, this would require a Constitutional Amendment I need to see the wording ...I believe I read an article about this and something in the wording you may not need that, I may be wrong will try to find the article. Edit: Why Trump Can End Birthright Citizenship by Executive Order When it comes to the 14th Amendment, my good friend and fellow Justice Department veteran Andy McCarthy agrees that it does not require birthright citizenship. And we’re not alone: Other experts, such as noted constitutional law scholar John Eastman, law professor and former dean of the Fowler School of Law at Chapman University and a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, take the same position on the citizenship clause (“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”). But Andy and I differ on one very important point: whether the misinterpretation of the Amendment can be changed by executive order. He doesn’t think so; I say that it can. Simply put, the president does have the ability through executive action to direct federal agencies to act in accordance with the original meaning and intent of the citizenship clause, and to direct those agencies to issue passports, Social Security numbers, etc., only to those individuals whose status as citizens meet the requirements of the law. This is especially true here where, contrary to Andy’s speculation, Congress actually did not clarify that its later statutory provision was somehow inconsistent with the original understanding of the Amendment. Congress codified the citizenship clause in Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. Section 301 of the INA (8 U.S.C. §1401(a)) simply repeats a portion of the language of the 14th Amendment, stating that an individual shall be a citizen of the U.S. if he is “born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As Andy correctly says, the term “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. was understood at the time this Reconstruction era amendment was adopted “to mean not owing allegiance to any other sovereign.” It seems rather obvious that children born to aliens who are in this country either legally or illegally are citizens of the native countries of their parents. Those children owe political allegiance to their parents’ native countries and thus are not within the political jurisdiction of the U.S. As Andy points out, if a “child is born in France to a married couple who are both American citizens, the child is an American citizen” and thus “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. The fact that any alien in the U.S. is subject to our territorial jurisdiction, and can therefore be prosecuted for breaking our laws, does not make them subject to the complete, political jurisdiction of the U.S. They owe no allegiance to the U.S. government and can’t be drafted into the military (if we re-imposed a draft); can’t be forced to serve on a jury; don’t have all of the same obligations, responsibilities, and rights that citizens do. But Andy doubts that the president can change this through an executive order. The “issue is not just what jurisdiction was understood to mean in 1868 when the 14th Amendment was adopted, but what it meant in 1952, when the statute defining U.S. citizenship was enacted,” he writes. That is a cogent observation. But, in fact, the legislative history of the INA does not reflect that Congress had a different understanding of “jurisdiction” in 1952. There is almost no discussion of this provision in the congressional record. One of the only lengthy discussions (but not about the jurisdiction requirement) is by Joseph Rider Farrington, who was the Territory of Hawaii’s delegate in the U.S. House of Representatives. He complained about the restrictive immigration measures at the time that didn’t allow permanent, resident aliens from Asian countries who were the parents of American citizens born in Hawaii to apply for citizenship. This discussion by Farrington does not add any more to this debate than the 1898 holding in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which stands only for the very narrow proposition that the U.S.-born children of lawful permanent resident aliens are U.S. citizens. It says nothing about the U.S.-born children of illegal aliens or aliens who are here temporarily like tourists. There is nothing in the congressional record of the passage of what became 8 U.S.C. §1401(a) that indicates that members of Congress had any different understanding or intent with regard to the citizenship requirement of being “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. In fact, at one point in the debate in the House of Representatives on April 23, 1952, Representative Thomas A. Jenkins (R., Ohio) asked Representative Louis E. Graham (R., Penn.) whether the bill changes any of the “legal definitions that have from practice become practically a part of the law” on immigration and naturalization. Graham’s answer? The Immigration and Nationality Act “restates the former definitions in accordance with existing law and the most recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.” So no change in the definition of “jurisdiction.” Andy correctly says that a president cannot “unilaterally change an understanding of the law that has been in effect for decades under a duly enacted federal law.” But that assumes the “understanding” is the correct one. If that understanding actually violates the plain text and intent of the law, the president as the chief law-enforcement officer can, and indeed has an obligation, to direct the federal government to begin applying and enforcing it correctly. That is the key issue here — Section 301 of the INA and the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment have been incorrectly enforced in violation of their terms. There is no question that if President Trump issues an executive order directing federal agencies to apply federal law according to what Andy, I, and others believe is the correct interpretation, that the government will be sued. This issue, whether the U.S.-born children of aliens who are only here temporarily as tourists or students or who are in this country illegally are citizens, has never been directly addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Perhaps it is time this question was answered. Not saying this article is correct but an opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 8 hours ago, Westside Steve said: Actually I'm good with this. I doubt that would be constitutionally feasible but... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/10/30/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order/1816666002/ I would have the law pertain to anyone here illegally or on a vacation/tourist visa. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 8 minutes ago, DieHardBrownsFan said: I would have the law pertain to anyone here illegally or on a vacation/tourist visa. exactly. This needs to get done now. freaking soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vambo Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 42 minutes ago, calfoxwc said: exactly. This needs to get done now. freaking soon. The Russian sell birth packages to pregnant women to have their babies in the USA and then go back to Russia but the children are guaranteed all citizen rights when they return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 Well so much for the self professed Constitutionalists. Deflecting to Obama means two wrongs make a right apparently. I'm one of the few that still thinks in terms of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings that uphold it and any amendments. To deflect into Obama and "he's just a hater" does not address the fact of what Trump wants to do which is unconstitutional. And I'd refer you to the George Will thread when it comes to the record setting deficits. Again trying to pass things off as "just a hater" does not let you off the hook if you are really a conservative Republican. You're "just an apologist" for Trump, not a conservative Constitutionalist. Every time I put up legitimate points you all take the low road to ignore the obvious on the part of Trump. So you are all fulfilling my other thread about cognitive dissonance. You can't take the light of truth when it comes to what he does in fact. You actively avoid thinking about it in any depth. Cult of Personality is alive and living in Trumptown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 22, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 29 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said: Well so much for the self professed Constitutionalists. Deflecting to Obama means two wrongs make a right apparently. I'm one of the few that still thinks in terms of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings that uphold it and any amendments. To deflect into Obama and "he's just a hater" does not address the fact of what Trump wants to do which is unconstitutional. And I'd refer you to the George Will thread when it comes to the record setting deficits. Again trying to pass things off as "just a hater" does not let you off the hook if you are really a conservative Republican. You're "just an apologist" for Trump, not a conservative Constitutionalist. Every time I put up legitimate points you all take the low road to ignore the obvious on the part of Trump. So you are all fulfilling my other thread about cognitive dissonance. You can't take the light of truth when it comes to what he does in fact. You actively avoid thinking about it in any depth. Cult of Personality is alive and living in Trumptown. Uh didn't I already say it probably couldn't be done constitutionally? Any executive order has to pass that muster. But I think we've outlived the need for the 14th Amendment the same as some people think we have outlived the need for the Second Amendment and the first. And they've already been hacked to bits so... But honestly if it was up to you should people in the United States illegally or on visas have the option of squirting out anchor babies? WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 I'd like to know of any other major country that gives citizenship to a child who is born there who's parents are not citizens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 1 hour ago, TexasAg1969 said: Well so much for the self professed Constitutionalists. Deflecting to Obama means two wrongs make a right apparently. I'm one of the few that still thinks in terms of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings that uphold it and any amendments. To deflect into Obama and "he's just a hater" does not address the fact of what Trump wants to do which is unconstitutional. And I'd refer you to the George Will thread when it comes to the record setting deficits. Again trying to pass things off as "just a hater" does not let you off the hook if you are really a conservative Republican. You're "just an apologist" for Trump, not a conservative Constitutionalist. Every time I put up legitimate points you all take the low road to ignore the obvious on the part of Trump. So you are all fulfilling my other thread about cognitive dissonance. You can't take the light of truth when it comes to what he does in fact. You actively avoid thinking about it in any depth. Cult of Personality is alive and living in Trumptown. you are too ignorant of the facts to be so arrogantly wrong, Texsag. *********************************************** https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/fourteenth-amendment "The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.” One of three amendments passed during the Reconstruction era to abolish slavery and establish civil and legal rights for black Americans, " ..."RECONSTRUCTION Abraham Lincoln’s assassination in April 1865 left his successor, President Andrew Johnson, to preside over the complex process of incorporating former Confederate states back into the Union after the Civil War and establishing former slaves as free and equal citizens. Johnson, a Democrat (and former slaveholder) from Tennessee, supported emancipation, but he differed greatly from the Republican-controlled Congress in his view of how Reconstruction should proceed. Johnson showed relative leniency toward the former Confederate states as they were reintroduced into the Union." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 Therefore, the intent of the 14th Amendment was NOT global abuse - show up here and get citizenship in a few weeks. So, a legal clarification to prevent abuse of the law is in order. That IS CONSTITUTIONAL. but don't take my opinion as established legit legal opinion. But Texsag - Mark Levin disagrees with you on anything, you should just go take a nap and a sip of tea. Mark Levin: 'Show Me the Evidence' Birthright Citizenship Was ... https://www.cnsnews.com/.../mark-levin-show-me-evidence-birthright-citizenship-was... Nov 1, 2018 - On his nationally syndicated radio talk show “The Mark Levin Show” on Wednesday, host and American lawyer Mark Levin challenged other lawyers and members of academia to show him evidence that “birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th Amendment.”. “I challenge you, all ... Levin: 'Completely False' That Children Born to Illegals Have ... https://www.cnsnews.com/.../levin-completely-false-children-born-illegals-have-consti... Aug 19, 2015 - Nationally syndicated radio talk show host Mark Levin cleared up any ... the jurisdiction of the United States [of the Fourteenth Amendment, ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 https://cdn.mrctv.org/videos/22810/22810-480p.mp “The history of this amendment is not in dispute. It’s not in doubt. It's not up for debate. So, what changed? Nothing in the Constitution changed. Nothing legally changed, as a matter of statutory law. “In the 1960s, the bureaucracy, under the great deal, decided to confer citizenship on babies born of illegal aliens in this country. And now we’re told, in order to reverse that, the president of the United States has to push for a constitutional amendment, or Congress has to pass a statute. But he’s not allowed to reverse what the bureaucracy did in the 1960s with an executive order. How insane is that?… “I challenge you, all those who have a different view from me, in academia, practicing lawyers or former federal this or former that, I challenge you to show me the evidence in the 1860s that supports your position that birthright citizenship was enshrined in the 14th Amendment. Just give us one piece of evidence. I challenge you to show me any statutory authority where Congress intended and, in fact, affirmatively granted birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens. And I challenge you to explain, in some kind of coherent way, how something that is done by the federal bureaucracy cannot be undone by the president directing the federal bureaucracy, which is what an executive order is. “Now, if you’ll tell me he’d have a stronger case if it was a statute, he’s not going to get a statute, and I don’t understand why that’s a stronger case. If it’s your position that it’s enshrined in the Constitution, then nothing can change it but a constitutional amendment, which will never happen.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 22, 2019 Report Share Posted July 22, 2019 I swear, if they make college free, I'm a'goin to go back to college and get a degree in law, and be a conservative civil rights attorney. Let's see ...If all my classes would still transfer... I could have the first two years done already...then I could test out of a few American History classes.... probably been too many years now to still have those credits transfer. crap. lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorka Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 2 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said: Well so much for the self professed Constitutionalists. Deflecting to Obama means two wrongs make a right apparently. I'm one of the few that still thinks in terms of the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings that uphold it and any amendments. To deflect into Obama and "he's just a hater" does not address the fact of what Trump wants to do which is unconstitutional. And I'd refer you to the George Will thread when it comes to the record setting deficits. Again trying to pass things off as "just a hater" does not let you off the hook if you are really a conservative Republican. You're "just an apologist" for Trump, not a conservative Constitutionalist. Every time I put up legitimate points you all take the low road to ignore the obvious on the part of Trump. So you are all fulfilling my other thread about cognitive dissonance. You can't take the light of truth when it comes to what he does in fact. You actively avoid thinking about it in any depth. Cult of Personality is alive and living in Trumptown. You spew your ignorance, you don't put up legit points. "Trump is a dictator" is not a legitimate point...that right there puts YOU on the low road. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 One post and knee jerks everywhere to defend the indefensible Liar King🤥🤴. LOL! You guys are so damn brainwashed by the "circus barker" (love the description cal-you should have stuck with it because he hasn't changed).🤣 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted July 23, 2019 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 19 minutes ago, TexasAg1969 said: One post and knee jerks everywhere to defend the indefensible Liar King🤥🤴. LOL! You guys are so damn brainwashed by the "circus barker" (love the description cal-you should have stuck with it because he hasn't changed).🤣 And rather than answer a simple question about the issue you spew this nonsense again. So there's that. WSS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gorka Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 On 7/22/2019 at 6:47 AM, LogicIsForSquares said: He will circumvent congress again. This time the Supreme Court will brush him back due to it being a violation of the 14th Amendment. Conservatives will then run around screaming about how we should do something about the Constitution and those amendments they don’t like. Uh no Mr. Fair and Balanced, conservatives wont go running around wanting to change amendments just like the liberals. That is, and always has been exclusively a libtard thing. Good try but you know you weren't getting away with that one. Fuck yeah I'd like it changed, but a Supreme Court ruling deeming it unconstitutional and you can call me disappointed. That's as far as it goes. The ruling must be accepted. Case closed. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 38 minutes ago, Gorka said: Uh no Mr. Fair and Balanced, conservatives wont go running around wanting to change amendments just like the liberals. That is, and always has been exclusively a libtard thing. Good try but you know you weren't getting away with that one. Fuck yeah I'd like it changed, but a Supreme Court ruling deeming it unconstitutional and you can call me disappointed. That's as far as it goes. The ruling must be accepted. Case closed. Not a peep of disagreement during the bumpstock saga from the NRA and mainstream conservatives. If anything they were making arguments for the ban. We know damn well there would hellfire and brimstone if Obama did the same thing. Zero principles when it comes to politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasAg1969 Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 16 hours ago, DieHardBrownsFan said: I'd like to know of any other major country that gives citizenship to a child who is born there who's parents are not citizens? My sister born in Venezuela carried dual citizenship until age 21 when she had to make a choice (by the US anyway). Venezuela however would still recognize her birthright if she went back. 3 hours ago, Westside Steve said: And rather than answer a simple question about the issue you spew this nonsense again. So there's that. WSS Sorry Steve with all the other garbage spewed out there I missed your question. My answer would be if they are illegally here, no. If they are legally here like with a Visa/passport for longer stays such as employees of a company, foreign government representatives, etc., then,like my sister in Venezuela, the answer is yes, just as it is in many other countries. I do not know if someone born here (or other countries) while the mother is on a vacation visit also gets that dual citizenship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted July 23, 2019 Report Share Posted July 23, 2019 4 hours ago, TexasAg1969 said: Sorry Steve with all the other garbage spewed out there I missed your question. My answer would be if they are illegally here, no. If they are legally here like with a Visa/passport for longer stays such as employees of a company, foreign government representatives, etc., then,like my sister in Venezuela, the answer is yes, just as it is in many other countries. I do not know if someone born here (or other countries) while the mother is on a vacation visit also gets that dual citizenship. That's more garbage from Texsag, the leftwing manic hellraiser. Birthright Citizenship Should End – It's a Magnet for Immigration Fraud ... https://www.heritage.org/.../birthright-citizenship-should-end-its-magnet-immigration-... Feb 19, 2019 - Proponents of birthright citizenship often paint it as an issue involving ... Here's how the fraud worked: Chinese women were coached to apply ... Federal prosecutors unseal indictments naming 19 people linked to ... https://www.ice.gov/.../federal-prosecutors-unseal-indictments-naming-19-people-link... Jan 31, 2019 - ... of aliens give birth in US to secure birthright citizenship for their children ... The indictments allege that many of the Chinese birth tourism customers failed ... All three are charged with conspiracy to commit immigration fraud, ... Travel agents charged with bringing pregnant Chinese women to give ... https://www.latimes.com/local/.../la-me-birth-tourism-indictments-20190131-story.ht... Jan 31, 2019 - ... Chinese women to the U.S. in order to obtain birthright citizenship for ... immigration fraud, money laundering and identity theft, according to ... U.S. charges 19 in Chinese 'birth tourism' scheme in California - Reuters https://www.reuters.com/.../u-s-charges-19-in-chinese-birth-tourism-scheme-in-califor... Jan 31, 2019 - ... Chinese women into the United States in order to secure birthright ... the schemes committed widespread immigration fraud and money ... Why Chinese parents come to America to give birth - Marketplace https://www.marketplace.org/2019/03/.../why-chinese-parents-come-america-give-birt... Mar 6, 2019 - As part of a series on birthright citizenship, Marketplace's China ... deceiving U.S. immigration officials, which can be prosecuted as visa fraud.). How specialist agencies help Chinese mothers give birth in the U.S. ... https://www.marketplace.org/.../agencies-help-pregnant-mothers-in-china-give-birth-i... Mar 7, 2019 - As part of a series on birthright citizenship, Marketplace's China ... visa fraud, defrauding landlords and other crimes stemming from the birth ... 3 Arrested in Crackdown on Multimillion-Dollar 'Birth Tourism ... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/us/anchor-baby-birth-tourism.html Jan 31, 2019 - Some Chinese couples were charged as much as $100000 for a ... The indictments include an array of charges, including visa fraud, wire fraud and ... to propose repealing birthright citizenship, which is enshrined in the 14th ... Trump needs to shut down the birth tourism scam | TheHill https://thehill.com/opinion/.../428881-trump-needs-to-shut-down-the-birth-tourism-sc... Feb 7, 2019 - This phenomenon is hardly isolated to Chinese mothers coming to ... the facts on birthright citizenship and the birth tourism scam in particular, ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.