Birthing children is no easy path to citizenship, you have to be here, birth your child for the low average price of $32,000 then your child gets citizenship — not you - and has to wait until they’re an adult so they can sponsor you for a green card which is when your 5 year clock starts, so sure, squeeze out a baby who moves to America and a mere 27 years later, problem solved. The whole interim period paying US taxes - and then for the rest of their natural lives - no matter where on earth they live. EASY.
I’m not pro jus soli for what it’s worth, but your arguments are just flat out wrong.
And except for Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chili and Uruguay, the rest aren’t what one would think of as “sought after”, otherwise you’d have other people trying to take advantage of their citizenship policies.
I’m not pro jus soli but to characterize birth tourism as a big problem is crazy. A conservative think tank estimated it at 40,000 births per year out of 4.3 million (0.9%) — the average delivery costs $32,000 for an economic benefit of $1.28B per year. Then those poor kids are going to have to pay US income taxes for the rest of their natural lives no matter where they live. We can expect the first 18 years to be abroad since their parents don’t get citizenship and the US has effectively zero social safety net anyways. What’s the big deal?
So, no, we still would allow millions of legal immigrants in. We’d just crack down on unregulated immigrants.
Said countries have even laxes immigration policies, similar proportions of immigrant populations, the same anti-immigrant rhetoric that you're spouting, and yet it's just not really the problem that it's made out to be at all.
Chile is also cracking down on illegal entries now that they’re more prevalent. No country will have unrestricted immigration, otherwise why not form a union with neighbors?
Also my claim wasn’t false as you suggested.
Also, I’m for immigration where we have proven needs. I don’t agree with flooding the market and depressing wages for average workers. PhDs, sure, rare skills, sure.
Or, let’s put it this way, would you be in favor we took Japan’s immigration system part and parcel and implemented it as they have?
The United States puts American workers at a unique disadvantage to immigrants because there isn't much of a social safety net. It ends up a race to the bottom for cheaper disposable labor.
See: The European Union
Inb4 "Yeah, but they have immigration control," yes, they do but upon entering and leaving the Schengen; otherwise, it's based on agreements with other countries.
It's why you can travel to Europe for up to 90 days on only a "visitor" visa (which is, really, just an entry stamp).
...but to say that countries don't trust their neighbours have strict border control between themselves (and haven't formed a union with their neighbours) pretty much negates the realities of the Eastern hemisphere.
And by no stretch of imagination do they need to wait for 27 long years!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/th...
I am not going to read any newspaper article when I have a living proof in my family.
And it wasn’t easy other. They had to wait 18 years before they got naturalized.
You even missed out on the basic fact that I am talking about legal immigration and "anchor baby" is a term used pejoratively in reference to immigrants who have dubious intentions. H1B is for highly skilled workers who have proved their mettle even before immigrating.
And for your kind information, what you call "single anecdote" is called "precedence" in legal terms and carries huge weight in future course of action
No, they can’t - not in anything resembling a reasonable timeframe. The only benefit they gain is the ability to have their child sponsor them once they are adults. It takes 18 years to become an adult, 1 year to petition for a green card and 5 years to get citizenship for a bare minimum of 24 years. I said 27 because I used 21 years of age to calculate. That’s not a benefit really, taking into account the fact the children have to pay taxes for that whole period while living abroad. Then the child has to want to live in the US, move there and sponsor their parents at their sole discretion.
The idea parents get massive benefits for having a child in the US is an “anchor baby” in colloquial terms, pejorative or not. It applies colloquially to legal and illegal immigrants - and so does the family reunification visa process. The idea of an anchor baby is a myth.
Your single anecdote is not outweighed by facts, it’s not precedent unless it happened in court (the whole immigration process is almost entirely discretionary and capricious, you can be denied or delayed for any reason, and you have almost zero recourse because you as a foreigner have no right to immigrate to the US except by asylum — and no amount of “my parents got in” is going to change the mind of a consular officer or immigration judge). You didn’t read the article I sent you, you bragged about it, and you’re still wrong.
I don’t respond to people who make preposterous assumptions about others. Your entire answer is laughable at best and I won’t dignify such mediocrity with my reply.
You have a good day, Sir!
Do you even peruse the rejoinder's properly?
IMO jus soli doesn’t make sense as your place of birth doesn’t make you intrinsically any more or less of a given nationality. Living somewhere does, being part of a society does, etc. I’d prefer birthright permanent residency for instance - you can claim PR any time, and if you live in the country for 3/5 years you can petition for citizenship like anyone else.
If it works it's normal. Just in a different sense.