Maternity Tourists

[Randy W]

.

from the Global Times

 

Maternity tourism damages both countries

 

The movie, Finding Mr. Right, directed by Xue Xiaolu and starring Tang Wei and Wu Xiubo, is meant to be a tribute to Nora Ephron's 1993 classic Sleepless in Seattle. But its love story is between a pregnant concubine who went to the city from China to deliver a baby and the driver working for local maternity centers that cater to these pregnant Chinese women.

 

. . .

 

For $10,000 to $20,000, agencies located in China and in the US can smooth the way for clients' visa applications and pre and post natal care. Some even offer to help clients apply for Medicaid, a government-sponsored health insurance plan that can cover the maternity costs for low-income people in the US.

In Los Angeles, the authorities have started to crack down on such maternity centers. In Seattle, custom officers recently received an order demanding they carefully check pregnant foreigners, according to one local Chinese language newspaper.

 

. . .

 

What strikes me is the way Chinese people talk about this. The agencies who promote this business say, "you pay us 100,000 yuan ($16,260), we give you back a 9.8-million-yuan American baby."

 

[Fu Lai]

In LA officials have filed ordinance violations, nothing more, and just on a couple places. Hardly a "crackdown".

 

"In China, finding loopholes may still be considered acceptable, if not respected as smart... But we should ask whether we should take advantage of loopholes just because they exist."

 

I know those in the USA consider it acceptable, probably in every country.

[dnoblett]

Sounds familiar:

http://candleforlove.com/forums/topic/45530-birth-tourism/

Edited June 28, 2013 by Randy W
goes to start of topic now (see edit history)

[warpedbored]

As I recall the total is less than 1000 babies a year. Hardly worth amending the constitution over.

[newacct]

But I don't understand what's the problem. What right do immigration officers to care whether someone entering is pregnant or not? As long as they won't use taxpayer resources (and I understand most birth tourists pay for everything themselves), they're in fact putting money into our economy. Their babies are American, great! Let's welcome them. If the problem is that "birth centers" are sketchy and expoiting women, then it's those that we need to shut down.

Edited June 28, 2013 by newacct (see edit history)

[Randy W]

But I don't understand what's the problem. What right do immigration officers to care whether someone entering is pregnant or not? As long as they won't use taxpayer resources (and I understand most birth tourists pay for everything themselves), they're in fact putting money into our economy. Their babies are American, great! Let's welcome them. If the problem is that "birth centers" are sketchy and expoiting women, then it's those that we need to shut down.

 

I'm not sure what the immigrations law is there, but the concern is anchor babies. The goal of having an anchor baby IS to use American resources, possibly for the lifetime of the baby. The article talks about how the agencies help their clients toward that end, and points out that some use Medicaid.

 

The fact that Chinese tourists are having anchor babies is a news topic in both countries. We don't often hear much from the Chinese point of view on this. It mentions the movie as a factor in increased birth tourism.

[warpedbored]

"Anchor babies" is a much misunderstood term. Having a baby in the US doesn't guarantee the mother or father anything. They can still be deported and given the choice of taking the child with them or leaving it behind. What it does do is give the child access to the American educational system. and later the option of sponsoring their parents to the US. In most cases the children return to China with their parents then after high school come to the US for college. One could argue that the US gets a productive tax paying citizen without the cost of a K-12 education.

[newacct]

 

But I don't understand what's the problem. What right do immigration officers to care whether someone entering is pregnant or not? As long as they won't use taxpayer resources (and I understand most birth tourists pay for everything themselves), they're in fact putting money into our economy. Their babies are American, great! Let's welcome them. If the problem is that "birth centers" are sketchy and expoiting women, then it's those that we need to shut down.

 

I'm not sure what the immigrations law is there, but the concern is anchor babies. The goal of having an anchor baby IS to use American resources, possibly for the lifetime of the baby. The article talks about how the agencies help their clients toward that end, and points out that some use Medicaid.

 

The fact that Chinese tourists are having anchor babies is a news topic in both countries. We don't often hear much from the Chinese point of view on this. It mentions the movie as a factor in increased birth tourism.

 

 

If they immediately go back to China to live, how is that using American resources? As I understand, most mothers pay a large sum to be able to come to the U.S. to give birth. Plus visitors generally are required to demonstrate financial resources, so birth mothers who uses American resources are probably only a few who do it fraudulently.

 

The term "anchor baby" has always been incorrect, as anchor baby means the baby somehow lets in the mother. But that's not possible as the baby's citizenship does not help the mother's immigration until the baby turns 21. Plus people from China who come to the U.S. to have babies generally go back and do not intend to live in the U.S. in the near future.

[Randy W]

 

 

But I don't understand what's the problem. What right do immigration officers to care whether someone entering is pregnant or not? As long as they won't use taxpayer resources (and I understand most birth tourists pay for everything themselves), they're in fact putting money into our economy. Their babies are American, great! Let's welcome them. If the problem is that "birth centers" are sketchy and expoiting women, then it's those that we need to shut down.

 

I'm not sure what the immigrations law is there, but the concern is anchor babies. The goal of having an anchor baby IS to use American resources, possibly for the lifetime of the baby. The article talks about how the agencies help their clients toward that end, and points out that some use Medicaid.

 

The fact that Chinese tourists are having anchor babies is a news topic in both countries. We don't often hear much from the Chinese point of view on this. It mentions the movie as a factor in increased birth tourism.

 

 

If they immediately go back to China to live, how is that using American resources? As I understand, most mothers pay a large sum to be able to come to the U.S. to give birth. Plus visitors generally are required to demonstrate financial resources, so birth mothers who uses American resources are probably only a few who do it fraudulently.

 

The term "anchor baby" has always been incorrect, as anchor baby means the baby somehow lets in the mother. But that's not possible as the baby's citizenship does not help the mother's immigration until the baby turns 21. Plus people from China who come to the U.S. to have babies generally go back and do not intend to live in the U.S. in the near future.

 

 

 

The birth occurred in America - that is the whole purpose of the trip (to use American resources, and to enable the use of American resources later in life). They pay a large sum, not to anyone in the U.S., but to the agency that arranges the trip. Some pay for all resources.

 

This article is from the Chinese point of view - the Chinese have little to no say in the American immigration process.

 

I don't care to take either side here.

Edited June 29, 2013 by Randy W (see edit history)

[warpedbored]

I agree with you Randy, I don't care to take either side. It's not really a big enough issue to worry much about since there are so few of them. The one thing that should be addressed is the mothers who come expecting a top notch medical facility then are warehoused in a crowded home. From what I've read California has taken action on this issue.

[newacct]

 

 

 

But I don't understand what's the problem. What right do immigration officers to care whether someone entering is pregnant or not? As long as they won't use taxpayer resources (and I understand most birth tourists pay for everything themselves), they're in fact putting money into our economy. Their babies are American, great! Let's welcome them. If the problem is that "birth centers" are sketchy and expoiting women, then it's those that we need to shut down.

 

I'm not sure what the immigrations law is there, but the concern is anchor babies. The goal of having an anchor baby IS to use American resources, possibly for the lifetime of the baby. The article talks about how the agencies help their clients toward that end, and points out that some use Medicaid.

 

The fact that Chinese tourists are having anchor babies is a news topic in both countries. We don't often hear much from the Chinese point of view on this. It mentions the movie as a factor in increased birth tourism.

 

 

If they immediately go back to China to live, how is that using American resources? As I understand, most mothers pay a large sum to be able to come to the U.S. to give birth. Plus visitors generally are required to demonstrate financial resources, so birth mothers who uses American resources are probably only a few who do it fraudulently.

 

The term "anchor baby" has always been incorrect, as anchor baby means the baby somehow lets in the mother. But that's not possible as the baby's citizenship does not help the mother's immigration until the baby turns 21. Plus people from China who come to the U.S. to have babies generally go back and do not intend to live in the U.S. in the near future.

 

 

 

The birth occurred in America - that is the whole purpose of the trip (to use American resources, and to enable the use of American resources later in life). They pay a large sum, not to anyone in the U.S., but to the agency that arranges the trip. Some pay for all resources.

 

This article is from the Chinese point of view - the Chinese have little to no say in the American immigration process.

 

I don't care to take either side here.

 

Giving birth in America is not for using American resources. Giving birth in America is solely for having the baby have American citizenship. Again, if you go to America to give birth and pay for it, that's not using other Americans' resources.

[Dennis143]

 

But I don't understand what's the problem. What right do immigration officers to care whether someone entering is pregnant or not? As long as they won't use taxpayer resources (and I understand most birth tourists pay for everything themselves), they're in fact putting money into our economy. Their babies are American, great! Let's welcome them. If the problem is that "birth centers" are sketchy and expoiting women, then it's those that we need to shut down.

 

I'm not sure what the immigrations law is there, but the concern is anchor babies. The goal of having an anchor baby IS to use American resources, possibly for the lifetime of the baby. The article talks about how the agencies help their clients toward that end, and points out that some use Medicaid.

 

The fact that Chinese tourists are having anchor babies is a news topic in both countries. We don't often hear much from the Chinese point of view on this. It mentions the movie as a factor in increased birth tourism.

 

Anchor Babies is a term that is used to lump all those who come to the US to birth a child in the hopes that the child's family can some day use that child's citizen status to immigrate here.

 

Let's get one thing clear. Chinese birthing centers are not the same as pregnant Mexican's sneaking across the border to give birth here.

 

Chinese who can afford $10,000 or more to have their child born here are NOT doing it in the hopes of having an anchor that will pull in all their families from poverty to a life of less struggle. They seek to have their US citizen child have the opportunity to gain entrance to and, hopefully, graduate from an American university.

 

These wealthy Chinese may consider using their child's citizen status to allow them to immigrate, but their wealth allows them many options of where they chose to immigrate to, if at all.

 

Understand one more thing about these birthing centers... I forget the Chinese word for it, but Chinese custom expects a woman who has just given birth to be sequestered for one month. This is one month of not bathing, feeling drafts of hot or cold air and staying in a dark room (well, that is the tradition, but many young urbane girls don't strictly follow). Anyway, because of this tradition, these Chinese birthing centers have become more visible. If there was not this Chinese tradition, we'd never know these centers existed.

[Randy W]

 

 

 

 

If they immediately go back to China to live, how is that using American resources? As I understand, most mothers pay a large sum to be able to come to the U.S. to give birth. Plus visitors generally are required to demonstrate financial resources, so birth mothers who uses American resources are probably only a few who do it fraudulently.

 

The term "anchor baby" has always been incorrect, as anchor baby means the baby somehow lets in the mother. But that's not possible as the baby's citizenship does not help the mother's immigration until the baby turns 21. Plus people from China who come to the U.S. to have babies generally go back and do not intend to live in the U.S. in the near future.

 

 

 

The birth occurred in America - that is the whole purpose of the trip (to use American resources, and to enable the use of American resources later in life). They pay a large sum, not to anyone in the U.S., but to the agency that arranges the trip. Some pay for all resources.

 

This article is from the Chinese point of view - the Chinese have little to no say in the American immigration process.

 

I don't care to take either side here.

 

Giving birth in America is not for using American resources. Giving birth in America is solely for having the baby have American citizenship. Again, if you go to America to give birth and pay for it, that's not using other Americans' resources.

 

 

 

???????

 

Sorry, but this discussion doesn't seem to be headed anywhere.

[True Blue]

 

 

 

 

If they immediately go back to China to live, how is that using American resources? As I understand, most mothers pay a large sum to be able to come to the U.S. to give birth. Plus visitors generally are required to demonstrate financial resources, so birth mothers who uses American resources are probably only a few who do it fraudulently.

 

The term "anchor baby" has always been incorrect, as anchor baby means the baby somehow lets in the mother. But that's not possible as the baby's citizenship does not help the mother's immigration until the baby turns 21. Plus people from China who come to the U.S. to have babies generally go back and do not intend to live in the U.S. in the near future.

 

 

The birth occurred in America - that is the whole purpose of the trip (to use American resources, and to enable the use of American resources later in life). They pay a large sum, not to anyone in the U.S., but to the agency that arranges the trip. Some pay for all resources.

 

This article is from the Chinese point of view - the Chinese have little to no say in the American immigration process.

 

I don't care to take either side here.

 

 

Sorry to be late to this conversation, but I do care to take a side. I hope to provide some information that may cause some of you to rethink your position on this issue.

 

I work in the financial office of a major State university and I strongly disagree with the position that there is no cost to American taxpayers. Most state universities and community colleges are very heavily subsidized by taxpayers either in the form of direct state appropriations, construction monies, in scholarships and other financial aid . Student Tuition payments for in state students typically cover only 25 to 40 per cent of the cost.

 

So when Mei Mei Preggo comes to the US to drop an anchor baby and then sends the child back at age 18, you and I as taxpayers and our children and our foreign relatives who come over to the USA on student visas and pay double or triple the normal in state tuition effectively subsidize the remaining 60 to 75% of Junior's education. The cost if you assume a Masters degree or Doctorate is effectively $50,000 to $200.000 in today's dollars which will likely be closer to $150,000 to $500,000 by the time junior reaches age 18 and returns to America to claim his rightful prize as a US Citizen. Not a problem for me if Mei Mei and her husband are here in the USA as permenant resident or US citizen taxpayers during those 18 years. Then they would be paying taxes into the system to help fund Junior's education. However, when they remain in China they create a huge unfunded benefits liability that must be funded by US taxpayers and by our foreign student relatives who come to the USA and pay excessively high double and triple tuition cost "out of state" student tuition fees.

 

While you may think that the above analysis only would apply to Publicly funded Universities, please consider that the US government provides a lot of subsidies primarily in the form of student financial aid, scholarships, low interest and forgivable student loans (e.g. student agrees to work as nurse in rural area for 3 years and loan is forgiven) to private universities. So basically this also increases the college tuition that our kids pay, increases the out of state tuition that our foreign relatives pay when they send their kids to the US for a University education and directly or indirectly increases the US and local taxes (income property and sales tax) that we all pay.

 

Continued toleration and lack of enforcement to stop this practice will also have a detrimental effect on all of us who hope to bring family members to the USA legally in the future. I might point out the long standing practice of Chinese, Indian, Taiwanese and other immigrants bringing parents (who never paid anything into the system) to Canada so the parents can immediately get retirement and medical benefits in that country. Canada has finally gotten wise and this has considerably slowed the entry of legal immigrants (even without parents in tow) to that country.

 

My wife's friends see nothing wrong with taking advantage of loopholes in the US educational and Canadian retirement systems and consider it a "smart practice". However when I ask them if they would think it fair for me to blow all of my retirement savings money on high living in the USA and then later expect to come to China and be supported for my retirement by the Chinese citizens, then they say that would be very unfair. They justify taking advantage of US and Canadian taxpayers because "your countries are very rich".

 

As for the exact amount of people trying to game the system in US and Canada (and by the way this is not only a Chinese and Indian issue although those countries perhaps tend to "take advantage of loopholes" better than immigrants from other countries as a graduate degree is expected in those cultures), I don't think we really know. I personally know of 4 Chinese women who have done the anchor baby route - all having babies in California because that state funds it's state universities the highest. Also perhaps due to the proximity to China and large Chinese population these may be where the birthing scam companies are located. I refer to them as scam companies because they make a profit, while you and I and our families and future legal immigrants pay the taxes to fund the future liabilities that these companies have created.

 

Will the anchor baby situation increase or diminish in the future? That depends on how the Chinese informal grapevine spreads the popularity of this scheme. The hit movie can only help popularize this. I ask you. Does your wife talk to other Chinese ladies to exchange money saving tips, bargains, great deals? If each anchor baby mother talks to 10 women who each talk to another 10 women who talk to another 10 women then 1,000 mothers have now learned this great way to "almost free US college tuition" for their future child. If only 2% of them follow through then that is 20 more anchor babies plus another 20,000 mothers added to the grapevine in looking for almost free US college tuition, etc. And since anchor baby citizens can later apply to bring their parents over, doesn't this lengthen the wait that those of us who later want to bring potential contributing tax paying adult brothers, sister and adult children into the USA?We would all like the opportunity to get something for nothing, but it is patently unfair to any country for someone to come in on a technicality and use it to reap benefits for which they or their families have never paid anything into the system. I would also add for those of us with fiancees, wives and family members born in China and who have come over or are not here yet, I would have to think that any anchor baby indirectly has an effect of some way slowing down the process of others getting legal immigration. In other words, if 25,000 anchor babies did not come here each year then perhaps some additional VISA slots might open up for legal immigration.

 

 

Please keep an open mind and consider that all government resources are paid for by someone. The government is not some nameless inert entity - it is you and I and all tax paying citizens and LPRs. Fairness dictates that those families receiving government benefits should at the very least contribute something to the system (either through paying taxes or by military or other government service) to help fund those benefits.

 

As citizens in some of the troubled economies of Europe -primarily Greece and Spain have learned recently - all government benefits must be funded from somewhere. Or as my buddy used to say "You got to pay to play:..(except if you follow this almost free tuition scheme in the USA)

 

Respectfully,

 

True Blue

Edited July 9, 2013 by True Blue (see edit history)

[tsap seui]

GREAT POST, buddy.

 

I like to say, "if you want to dance, you gotta pay the band".

 

There is always someone trying to sneak into the "dance".

 

tsap seui