Maternity Tourists

[credzba]

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

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

 

 

I would think that a student (even one who was American citizen by birth) that came from outside the state (much less outside the country) would pay out of state tuition, and in fact wouldn't they have to pay foreign student tuition?

If that is true, I don't see any dis-advantage to universities as they are already courting foreign students because of the increased tuition payments. The citizenship just solves the visa problem, doesn't change the tuition charge.

 

The laws are crazy, so please correct me if I am wrong, but being a US citizen only guarantees they can come to America. It does not give them state residency, and that is what provides a discount in tuition.

 

My point being, the birth citizens are not costing colleges money, in fact they are increasing the potential future foreign students and as such helping the finances of the university.

[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.

 

 

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.

 

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

 

 

I would think that a student (even one who was American citizen by birth) that came from outside the state (much less outside the country) would pay out of state tuition, and in fact wouldn't they have to pay foreign student tuition?

If that is true, I don't see any dis-advantage to universities as they are already courting foreign students because of the increased tuition payments. The citizenship just solves the visa problem, doesn't change the tuition charge.

 

The laws are crazy, so please correct me if I am wrong, but being a US citizen only guarantees they can come to America. It does not give them state residency, and that is what provides a discount in tuition.

 

My point being, the birth citizens are not costing colleges money, in fact they are increasing the potential future foreign students and as such helping the finances of the university.

 

 

 

I believe state residency is acquired in most cases, after living in the state for one year, regardless of citizenship. Many people will delay their enrollment in college for a year in order to become eligible for the in-state tuition.

[Dennis143]

Credz's correct in that the majority of Chinese who can afford to pay tens of thousands of dollars up front to birth here are not financially strapped to have or want to game the system.

 

If there's free money, no ones going to turn it down and that goes for you and me too.

[credzba]

Blue's diatribe was filled with innuendo and racial bias (Mei mei preggo for one) that it isn't really worth trying to debate or even discuss.

 

I am naive, but I didn't take it as racial bias, just making fun of those pregnant ladies (which is a dangerous thing to do if your within reach of one).

 

I think he was just goofing about that part, but I am curious about the financial statements.

 

My wife was talking about birthing citizenship, and she said for most of the people with enough dollars to do this it isn't about the school, or the citizenship. It is about face, and 1-up manship over their wealthy friends.

Today, it is a statement of your position to say your son/daughter studied abroad.

These people are just raising that same thought process to "maybe your child studied abroad, but MY baby was BORN abroad".

 

It is a sure sign of too much money when your bragging about birthing a kid abroad, but I think my wife is right.

(WHAT am I saying, of course dear your always right! )

[True Blue]

 

Blue's diatribe was filled with innuendo and racial bias (Mei mei preggo for one) that it isn't really worth trying to debate or even discuss.

 

I am naive, but I didn't take it as racial bias, just making fun of those pregnant ladies (which is a dangerous thing to do if your within reach of one).

 

I think he was just goofing about that part, but I am curious about the financial statements.

 

My wife was talking about birthing citizenship, and she said for most of the people with enough dollars to do this it isn't about the school, or the citizenship. It is about face, and 1-up manship over their wealthy friends.

Today, it is a statement of your position to say your son/daughter studied abroad.

These people are just raising that same thought process to "maybe your child studied abroad, but MY baby was BORN abroad".

 

It is a sure sign of too much money when your bragging about birthing a kid abroad, but I think my wife is right.

(WHAT am I saying, of course dear your always right! )

 

Dear Dennis and anyone else who may have been offended by my comments,

 

My diatribe against those who expect to be "takers" while other folks do the heavy lifting as "givers" was intended. It is indeed one of the factors for which capitalism is fairer than communism IMHO.

 

However please be assured that no racial bias was in any way intended. It was a poor and obviously failed attempt at humor to lighten up the situation for which I sincerely apologize to all here who may have taken this in the wrong way. My apologies again.

 

Best regards,

 

True Blue

[True Blue]

Credz's correct in that the majority of Chinese who can afford to pay tens of thousands of dollars up front to birth here are not financially strapped to have or want to game the system.

 

If there's free money, no ones going to turn it down and that goes for you and me too.

Dennis,

 

I think you hit on the problem precisely. There is "free money" available on the table due to this apparent loophole and it should be closed. Until it is, any financially savy family is going to consider taking it, whether they desperately need the money or not. If China was giving out free college tuition to US visitors, I think many of us would consider shuffling our children off to China instead of taking our 2nd and 3rd mortgages to pay US college tuition rates..

 

Regarding my apology above, I also want to say that my comments in no way reflect on adopted Chinese or other foreign babies brought into the US to be adopted by US Citizens and LPRs. I am a proud adoptive parent myself and I believe adopted children and natural born children should be equal in all respects. My comments were not based on attacking children or parents for being financially astute enough to grab "free money" off the table. I only meant to show others that this loophole was very unfair to those taxpayers and foreign student visa holders who have to pay for the increased costs involved. Again, no intent to show malice toward any individuals or groups----[except maybe the $#%@ boneheads in the US Government who created this loophole

 

Best regards,

 

True Blue.

Edited July 10, 2013 by True Blue (see edit history)

[True Blue]

 

Blue's diatribe was filled with innuendo and racial bias (Mei mei preggo for one) that it isn't really worth trying to debate or even discuss.

 

I am naive, but I didn't take it as racial bias, just making fun of those pregnant ladies (which is a dangerous thing to do if your within reach of one).

 

I think he was just goofing about that part, but I am curious about the financial statements.

 

My wife was talking about birthing citizenship, and she said for most of the people with enough dollars to do this it isn't about the school, or the citizenship. It is about face, and 1-up manship over their wealthy friends.

Today, it is a statement of your position to say your son/daughter studied abroad.

These people are just raising that same thought process to "maybe your child studied abroad, but MY baby was BORN abroad".

 

It is a sure sign of too much money when your bragging about birthing a kid abroad, but I think my wife is right.

(WHAT am I saying, of course dear your always right! )

 

Sending kids to the US on student visas (and paying out of state tuition) is a valuable program as it exposes US students to multi-cultural environments and creates learning and friendship building opportunities for all involved (students, faculty, staff, local business folks, anyone around a college community). The "anchor baby" is not necessary to send your kids to study abroad. I think it is an issue of fairness. My adult stepdaughter will wait 10+ years to immigrate and had she been under 18 would still have had some amount of wait had she come to the US with my fiance/now wife..

 

The US immigration procedures are all about honesty and telling the truth (CP membership, financial records, police conduct reports). Why should a "hidden" anchor baby brought to the US under deceptive means jump to the front of the line? Why reward deception?

 

I have no problem with the idea of tourists having babies in the USA. I just don't think the babies should automatically become a citizen and gain future rights and benefits unless one of the parents is a US citizen or LPR who will pay taxes to help defray at least some part of the cost of those benefits.

 

Best regards,

 

True Blue

[tsap seui]

 

 

Blue's diatribe was filled with innuendo and racial bias (Mei mei preggo for one) that it isn't really worth trying to debate or even discuss.

 

I am naive, but I didn't take it as racial bias, just making fun of those pregnant ladies (which is a dangerous thing to do if your within reach of one).

 

I think he was just goofing about that part, but I am curious about the financial statements.

 

My wife was talking about birthing citizenship, and she said for most of the people with enough dollars to do this it isn't about the school, or the citizenship. It is about face, and 1-up manship over their wealthy friends.

Today, it is a statement of your position to say your son/daughter studied abroad.

These people are just raising that same thought process to "maybe your child studied abroad, but MY baby was BORN abroad".

 

It is a sure sign of too much money when your bragging about birthing a kid abroad, but I think my wife is right.

(WHAT am I saying, of course dear your always right! )

 

Dear Dennis and anyone else who may have been offended by my comments,

 

My diatribe against those who expect to be "takers" while other folks do the heavy lifting as "givers" was intended. It is indeed one of the factors for which capitalism is fairer than communism IMHO.

 

However please be assured that no racial bias was in any way intended. It was a poor and obviously failed attempt at humor to lighten up the situation for which I sincerely apologize to all here who may have taken this in the wrong way. My apologies again.

 

Best regards,

 

True Blue

 

Good grief, I see no reason to apologize True Blue, for what? I, for one, certainly took your phrase for what it was, simply a funny name. And I'm sensitive to racial slurs. Your phrase was not racial in any form...just a funny name. I've read your posts for years and never seen you even begin to post negatively, with an attitude, and especially racially. As you've seen none of the fine and fair mods on Candle took your words for anything but a funny name. There are plenty of forums around where speculation and conjecture about one's words rule, Thankfully, Candle isn't one of them.

 

In your position at a university, I can't think of anyone who has a better grasp of the overall picture than a person in your position. You've always been a straight up guy with your posts, while I've got no real issues with this dropping a kid while in America stuff, I fail to see where your words could be taken as a "diatribe" in any form of the definition of the word (bitter and violent denunciation of a person or thing). Actually, your post was very calm and to the point. It didn't look like you were upset about anything, just stating the facts as a person from your professional position as one who works in the financial office of a major state university only could.

 

Then again, I realize everyone has their own assumptions and way of looking at one's words. You have been nothing but a sensible and valued poster, one with a great sense of humor, on Candle. I certainly saw nothing you needed to apologize over in this thread, more like any apologizing done ought to be heading your way.

 

Thanks for an informative post.

 

tsap seui

[warpedbored]

The problem is too small to make it worth amending the constitution over. About 2000 babies a year at most. Until then they are US citizens with all the rights and privileges of any US Citizen. When it comes right down to it we are all accidents of birth. I don't see how where my parents were born make any difference. I certainly had no say in the matter

[Randy W]

Dennis143, on 10 Jul 2013 - 03:16 AM, said: Blue's diatribe was filled with innuendo and racial bias (Mei mei preggo for one) that it isn't really worth trying to debate or even discuss.

 

This was the only post which claimed "innuendo and racial bias"

 

Dennis is NOT a moderator here.

 

I was unable to delete this comment until after I first saw it the next morning. It had already been picked up by credzba. I chose to leave THAT post intact.