An old tradition or birth tourism?

From the NY Times:

To Western ears, confinement sounds like something out of a Victorian novel, but in some traditional Asian cultures, women still spend the month after a baby’s birth in pampered seclusion. Typically, a woman’s relatives would care for her, but more recently, the practice has been outsourced to postpartum doulas and confinement centers, like the one Ms. Lu operates. In the United States, they cater to middle-class immigrant women separated from their families. Business is steady enough in New York City to support at least four postpartum centers, tucked away in the heavily Asian-immigrant neighborhoods of Flushing and Bayside, Queens.

The centers largely fly below the radar of English-language authorities — they advertise online or in Chinese-language publications. They make up such a niche market that city and state authorities did not know they even existed. Jeffrey Hammond, a spokesman for the state Health Department, said that as long as the centers were not offering medical services, they would not require a license. A spokeswoman for the city Health Department said that it had no information on the centers.

But they made a brief appearance in the news when, in March, officials in San Gabriel, Calif., shut down what they said was a home for women who had come to the United States to give birth so that the children would be American citizens — so-called anchor babies.

It’s unclear whether New York’s confinement centers cater to that market. Generally they practice a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy regarding their clients’ origins. Both Ms. Lu’s center and the ones run by Annie Gao, another Flushing confinement entrepreneur, give a Beijing phone number on their Web sites. Ms. Gao, when pressed on what kind of clients her center drew — older or younger, local or tourist — said: “I’ve never noticed any tendency. When a woman comes to me, I only see a mother. It’s a mother and a baby, and that’s all that matters.” (She, like the other women interviewed, spoke in Mandarin Chinese.)

There are no hard numbers on how many women might be using the New York centers for so-called maternity tourism. And nationwide, “we really have no way of knowing,” said Jessica Vaughan, director of policy studies for the Center for Immigration Studies, a group that seeks tougher immigration laws. Government agencies and immigration advocacy groups said they did not track such numbers.

Paper offers 3 choices for enforcing 14th amendment

From the Times Newsweekly:

There is nothing wrong with the 14th Amendment, but its interpretation has been completely distorted of late—a fact that should outrage American citizens of every walk of life.

“Anchor babies” have been an immigration phenomenon in the U.S. since the 1980s. By latching onto rights granted under the 14th Amendment, illegal alien mothers give birth to their children in the U.S., making the babies eligible to receive welfare and social benefits. The parents of these children are virtually left alone, regardless of their status, since separating families is not exactly a popular idea.

The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense.

Even if the law is interpreted in its most basic sense, the fact that a newborn anchor baby is a U.S. citizen does not automatically allow their extended family to remain in the country illegally. The infant’s birthright citizenship is not transferable to any other member of the family.

Amending the Constitution—a task so difficult that it’s only been done 27 times in two centuries—isn’t going to solve the immigration problem; changing the federal immigration laws already on the books will. By not correcting this misapplication of the 14th Amendment, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.

We offer three alternative options: 1) The mother can leave the newborn with someone in the country who is a citizen, then return to their native country. 2) The parents can take the child back to their native country and let them return when they are of legal age to live as citizens of the U.S. 3) The parents of the child can apply for citizenship before the child is born so they can remain in the country legally and enjoy the rights and privileges entitled to American citizens.

The 14th Amendment doesn’t need to be repealed and replaced; it only needs to be enforced as originally intended.

Debating the fate of anchor babies

From Fox:

"Anchor babies" is becoming well-known term in the nation's debate over immigration and may become its next focal point.

According to Time magazine, the term is being used to describe children born in the United States to illegal immigrants. The thought is that they help "anchor" these families into the country.

Legislation is being considered both in some states and at the national level that would deny birth certificates to these children, reversing a birthright currently guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment.

Many on both sides agree the debate will likely find its way to the Supreme Court.

The 14th Amendment states that "All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

According to the Library of Congress web guides, the 14th Amendment was ratified on July 9, 1968. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States" included freed slaves and their children.

Time states that Pearce believes the amendment was "hijacked" by illegal immigrants who "use it as a wedge" to "gain access to the great welfare state we've created."

NPR reported that similar legislation has been introduced in Congress and in two other states, Oklahoma and Texas.

The federal bill has 91 co-sponsors. ABC News stated that the "Birthright Citizenship Bill" would only grant citizenship "if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is:
– a citizen or national of the United States;
– an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States;
– or an alien performing active service in the armed forces."