California Woman Sent to Prison Over Chinese Birth Tourism Scheme

I have written about "Chinese Birth Tourism" (i.e. Communist Chinese "anchor babies") as it relates to natural born citizenship before, noting that the US federal government prosecutes and imprisons persons who organize or facilitate such "birth tourism".  This post will focus on the absurdity of the leftist pretense that "anchor babies" are indeed US citizens.

The linked article reports that a "California woman" and her husband, who had "helped pregnant Chinese women travel to the United States to give birth so that their children would have automatic United States citizenship", were "both convicted of conspiracy and money laundering".  

Obviously -- definitionally -- if the US federal government is prosecuting, convicting, and imprisoning the organizers of "birth tourism" schemes on conspiracy charges, then it is the "birth tourism" itself which is the underlying crime at issue.  I mean, really! Literally everyone knows that only Donald Trump can be prosecuted for "conspiracy" to not commit a crime.

Think about this -- the (pregnant) Chinese women who make use of these (illegal) "birth tourism" schemes are in the US legally when they give birth.  Is giving birth in the US illegal?  Is giving birth in the US when one is not a US citizen illegal?  Obviously, the answer to both questions is a resounding "No".  So then, where is the illegality?  It is in trying to steal US citizenship for one's child (and thereby benefit oneself in the future). IF -- as the Democrats and other leftists assert -- the 14th Amendment mandates that *all* persons born in US territory (*) are by that mere fact US citizens, irrespective of the citizenship and legal status of the parent(s), THEN prosecuting the persons who facilitate those births is absurd.

As explained below (*), despite the 14th Amendment, until 1924, and even though born in US territory, and even though born to parents who likewise had been born in US territory, most American Indians were not US citizens because their parents were not citizens/subjects of the US sovereignty, but rather were citizens/subjects of different sovereignties; to wit: their tribal nations.

Now, IF the US Constitution did not extend US citizenship to American Indians or the children of American Indians -- to a class of persons who had for many generations been resident within the territory of the USA -- due to the fact that their parents were not already US citizens, THEN how can the Democrat/leftist assertion that the Constitution automatically confers US citizenship on the child of someone who had crossed the border five minutes ago possibly be true?  It is absurd!

Consider what is more typically meant by the term "anchor baby". There are two classes --

1) Those born to non-citizen parents who are in the US legally. This includes such persons as Barack Obama -- allegedly born in the US, with no real proof given, to a non-citizen father -- and Marco Rubio, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Kamala Harris;

2) Those born to non-citizen parents who are on the US illegally. This is currently the more numerous class, and the more contentious, as the Democrats and other leftists aim to use them to cheapen the value of US citizenship, and hope to use them to cement in permanent leftist control of the US government;

The Democrats and other leftists assert that the US Constitution confers US citizenship on the two classes of persons noted above. And moreover, they assert that the Constitution confers not mere citizenship, but natural born citizenship (which, as Mrs Olson says of Folger's Coffee, is "the richest kind").

But, as the examples of both the prosecution, conviction, and imprisonment of those who facilitate "birth tourism", and of the citizenship status of American Indians show, the leftists are wrong. They are, in fact, lying.

If, despite the criminal prosecutions of those who facilitated such "birth tourism" births, the children born in the US to "citizens" of Communist China are indeed US citizens, why does the US government allow their mothers to take them back to China, to a life of slavery in-all-but-name and life-long indoctrination in hatred of America?

Or what? Does the act of trying to steal US citizenship for one's child (and thus to benefit oneself in the future) become a crime only if one has "conspired" with and paid money to a third party, such that those who "free-lance" it to drop an "anchor baby" get a pass (and get the citizenship)?

=======

(*) I have also mentioned this fact before (though perhaps not in a post on this blog) -- 

After ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, and after the US supreme (**) Court's 1898 Kim Wong Ark ruling (which Democrats and leftists love to misrepresent), most American Indians *still* were not US citizens until passage of the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924".

This is the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment --

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.

Notice that the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment does not explicitly deny US citizenship to (most) American Indians.  And yet, they were not extended US citizenship either by the 14th Amendment itself nor by the supreme Court's Kim Wong Ark ruling.

Clearly, the 14th Amendment's Citizenship Clause does not mean what the Democrats and other leftists like to assert that it means.  Here is the Wickedpedia article's introductory paragraph on the Act --

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, (43 Stat. 253, enacted June 2, 1924) was an Act of the United States Congress that declared Indigenous persons born within the United States are US citizens. Although the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides that any person born in the United States is a citizen, there is an exception for persons not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the federal government. This language was generally taken to mean members of various tribes that were treated as separate sovereignties: they were citizens of their tribal nations.

Attend to this: (most) American Indians -- even if born in US territory and even 56 years after ratification of the 14th Amendment -- were not US citizens because their parents were not citizens/subjects of the US sovereignty, but rather were citizens/subjects of different sovereignties.

So, since the US Constitution did not extend US citizenship to (most) American Indians, how is it that they became US citizens in 1924 by a mere Act of Congress? By the fact that the Constitution reserves to Congress the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". That is, the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924" is a naturalization law: the US Congress enacted a law stating that all non-citizen American Indians were thenceforth naturalized US citizens, and thus that their (US-born) descendants would be natural born US citizens.

Clearly, the right to claim US citizenship is not merely a matter of 'jus soli' ("right of soil"). That is, it isn't merely the fact of being born on US soil which confers US citizenship. 

Similarly, the right to claim US citizenship is not merely a matter of 'jus sanguinis' ("right of blood"). That is, one is not a US citizen merely because one's parents (note the plural) are US citizens -- it is for this reason that children born overseas to US citizen parents are not accorded US citizenship unless their parent(s) with US citizenship submit requisite paperwork as established by US naturalization law before the child's 18th birthday.

(**) "supreme Court" capitalization as per the US Constitution.

California Woman Sent to Prison Over Chinese Birth Tourism Scheme

EDIT (2025/02/12): Chip Roy Raises Issue Of Birth Tourism During Discussion Of Birthright Citizenship

Utterly Predictable ... and Predictably Out-of-touch

Concerning the Democrats' *utterly predictable* -- and predictably out-of-touch -- excuses for why Kamala Sutra lost --

Not many people remember that a black woman ran to be the Democratic Party's presidential candidate in 1972 -- Shirley Chisholm; she didn't make it, which is probably why so few remember her effort.

Now, let me *really* blow your socks off: my father -- a rural Southern white man -- "po' white trash" as they say -- had intended to vote for Chisholm.

===========

Also --

It's being reported that the Harris campaign started out with over a billion dollars (mostly "inherited" from the Buy-den campaign) and ended up 20 million in the hole.

Imagine what these people would have done to the country.

I suspect that much of that expense went to shipping "supporters" from "rally" to "rally". You see, thousands of the same phones were at multiple of her "rallies" ... and also at various "protests" (i.e. riots) over the past few years.

=============

Edit (2023/11/11):

I'm posting this to draw your attention to the short clip of "Morning Joe" at the start of the video. NOTICE: He doesn't *really* listen to what his wife says. NOTICE: The look on her face.

How long, do you think, until she files for divorce? --

TimCast: Democrat MSNBC Host ROASTED For MOCKING Working Class Over Grocery Prices

About Those Lawns

 Recently, when asked *specifically* what she intended to do to "bring down prices and mak[e] life more affordable", Kamala "Sutra" Harris went into word-salad mode ... and never got close to answering the question.  As she meandered her way to no-where, she said that she "grew up in a neighborhood of folks who were very proud of their lawn ...".  What, you may wonder, is that all about?

What it's about is that she's trying to tell black "folks" that, "See! I'm just like you!"

Recall that Kamala "Sutra" Harris grew up in Canada, and has little to none of the "lived-experience" of black Americans.  BUT, she has heard of the old stereotype within "the black community" of the "lawn-proud" black man.  So, she's making reference to that stereotype to say to black "folks" that, "See! I'm just like you!" ... probably without realizing that the "lawn-proud" black man was a figure of both amusement and bemusement.

By the way, in the black neighborhood in which I grew up, only the very few white households (my family were the only white household with children for blocks around) had lawns.  The reason for this is that in the black households, the lady of the house *swept* the lawn with a broom on a daily basis.

EDIT (2024/09/02):

Isn't it odd that Kamala Sutra was raised in a middle-class neighborhood, where people were proud of their lawns, and simultaneously grew up living in an apartment above a "child-care center", with the business being owned by a woman who lived "two doors down [the hall]"?

About "Price-Gauging"

The puppet-masters of That Empty Vessel, Kaaamala (*) Sutra (**), recently instructed her that her policy will be to enact a federal law against "price-gauging", as she mispronounced the phrase.  Presumably, her TelePrompTer did have "price-gouging" written, but she, being as empty and vapid as she is, and perhaps not having been verbally informed as to what she would be fulminating against, could get no closer to the word "gouging" than to say "gauging".

Weird.

Still, my purpose here isn't to hammer on Kaaamala Sutra, but rather to demolish the concept of "price-gouging" itself -- to wit: I wish Gentle Reader to understand that there is no such thing as "price-gouging". The idea (and assertion) of "price-gouging" is founded upon a number of lies and hypocrisies. I'll try to elucidate these (with no guarantee that I've uncovered them all):

1) There is an objectively "right" price for a good or service: But, in fact, the only "right" price for a good or service is what someone else is willing to pay for it.  This "right" price" is both subjective and situational; it is subjective in that the persons who comprise the potential market for it will value it higher or lower in relation to other goods and services which they also desire; it is situational in that markets may change, both with respect to place and to time.

Consider: In the 19th century, before the invention of kerosene, the wealthier people lit their homes with lamps burning whale oil and/or candles made of whale oil.  There was an entire industry, centered in coastal New England, which sent thousands of men out onto the global oceans to "harvest" sperm whales to acquire this oil. The oil had a price -- based as all prices are, on the demand and the supply, and which varied over time as demand rose and supply fell. Yet, today, a century and a half later? Today, whale oil is both worthless and priceless: it is worthless in that there is no demand for it; it is priceless in that were there some eccentric individual who wanted whale oil to light his home, he would have to, in essence, rebuild that industry with his own effort and/or wealth.

2) There is some bureaucrat, somewhere, who, while knowing nothing about anyone else's life-circumstance, is competent to determine what the "right" price is for any good or service: This one is so absurd that I don't believe I need say more about it. I list it here for the sake of bringing it to Gentle Reader's attention.

3) It is "immoral" to offer a good or service for more than its "right" price: The corollary of this is, of course, that it is "immoral" to try to buy a good or service for less than its "right" price. We all know that no one who asserts the first will also assert the second, and certainly not with respect to his own desire to get a good or service as cheaply as he might.

4) "It's OK when I do it": This is related to 3) above; of those persons who whinge and fulminate about "price-gouging", there is not one person in one hundred who will not "price-gouge" in his turn should the opportunity arise.  The most prosaic example might be something like buying a house for $40,000 in 1980 and, having lived in it for 44 years (***), offering it for sale in 2024 for $250,000.

5) And, whatever other lies and hypocrisies I may have missed, the ultimate lie upon which the idea (and assertion) of "price-gouging" is based is: "I deserve to live by the sweat of your brow."

(*) Don't you dare pronounce her name according to the normal stress and cadence of the English language, you raycisss!

(**) I wish to pay homage both to her ethnic heritage and to her "political" skills.

(***) BY THE WAY, since at least the Clinton years, the Democrats have dreampt of taxing homeowners for the "unrealized capital-gains" which accrue to them by virtue of not paying rent.  After all, how unfair is it that Person A pays rent for 44 years, and ends up owning nothing, while Person B pays a mortgage for 30 years and ends up owning a house which he might be able to sell for $250,000?!!!

And, they're openly at it again.

This is true in all years, but especially in this year: Vote Democrat at your own peril.

Again, with the "Natural Born Citizen"

 It's getting to be that time again, when politicians who are not legally entitled to seek the US presidency will nonetheless seek the US presidency.  It is up to *you*, as US citizens and electors, to understand why these politicians are ineligible and to *refuse* to support them in their illegal quests.

The US Constitution *requires* that the President and the Vice-President of the USA be natural born US citizens.

But, what does "natural born US citizen" mean?  What requirement or requirements does one have to meet in order to be a "natural born US citizen"?

Some people -- generally Democrats or other leftists, but also GOPers who want to obfuscate the fact that their favorite politician is not a natural born US citizen – will say, “The Constitution does not define the term ‘natural born US citizen’”, as though that means anything; and with the generally unspoken assertion that the term therefore means nothing, or they will explicitly say that therefore we cannot know what it means.  Same difference.  But, this pseudo-argument is absurd in at least three ways:

1) The US Constitution defines almost none of the terms it uses. One of the few terms it does define is ‘treason’, and that is because it is redefining the term more narrowly than it had been understood since 1066.

2) To say that since the Constitution doesn’t define some term it uses, and thus that the term’s meaning is unknown or obscure, is to say that the Framers mindlessly put things in the document without knowing what they meant by those terms.  You know, sort of like Nancy Pelosi’s infamous “We have to pass it to find out what’s in it”.

3) To say that since the Constitution doesn’t define some term it uses, and thus that the term’s meaning is unknown or obscure, is to say that *all* terms used in the document are of unknown or obscure meanings.

Some people – much the same people as above, and for much the same reasons – will say that "natural born US citizen" means *anyone* born in the USA.  But, does that assertion stand up to scrutiny?  Are “anchor babies” natural born US citizens, and thus legally able to occupy the offices of President and Vice-President?  Are “birth-tourism babies” natural born US citizens, and thus legally able to occupy the offices of President and Vice-President?  I don’t know whether it’s still common, but some years ago it was popular with the more affluent subjects of (Communist) China to travel to the US just before their babies were due to be born, so as to take advantage of an at-the-time relatively recent supreme Court (capitalization intentional, as per the Constitution) re-interpretation of the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. 

Are these people – Chinese “citizens”, born to Chinese “citizens”, reared in Communist China -- *really* natural born US citizens and legally able to occupy the offices of President and Vice-President?  Of course not, that’s absurd!

So, if merely being born on US soil does not suffice to make one a natural born US citizen, what does?

Here are the conditions that one’s birth must meet to in order to make one a natural born US citizen:

1) One must be born under the *sole* jurisdiction of the USA;

2) One’s parents (note the plural) must be US citizens at the time of one’s birth;

2a) which implies that one’s parents must be married to one another, as bastards “have no father”.

Concerning “birth tourism” babies and “anchor babies”, while indeed born in the USA, they fail on both counts.

Concerning Nikki Haley, Kamala Harris, Marco Rubio, while indeed born in the USA, they also fail on both counts.

Concerning Ted Cruz, he also fails on both counts – he was not even born in the USA, his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth, and, get this, he wasn’t even legally a US citizen until he was 16 years old.

Concerning Barack Obama, we don’t know *where* he was born; he himself has given conflicting accounts.  But, we *do* know that his father was not a US citizen at the time of his birth.  Thus, Barack Obama is *not* a natural born US citizen, and his occupancy of the office of US President was unconstitutional, and thus illegal.

EDIT: 2023/12/28 (the following is a response I made to on GAB to someone's question about the natural born US citizenship status of certain politicians) --

Cruz's mother was a US citizen; his father was not. Cruz's US citizenship was conferred as a matter of US naturalization law -- he is a *naturalized* US citizen. And, in fact, he wasn't legally a US citizen until his mother submitted the requisite paperwork pursuant to US naturalization law when he was 16 years old.

When the Constitution was written, a (married) woman's citizenship was *automatically* the same as her husband's; this was under the legal doctrine called 'Coverture'. In the early 20th Century, the citizenship status of a married woman was de-linked from that of her husband. Had Cruz been born previous to this de-linkage, his mother wouldn't have been able to petition for automatic naturalization for Ted, as being married to a non-citizen, she would no longer have been a US citizen.

To the best of my knowledge, even to this day, US naturalization law makes a distinction between children born overseas to parents both of whom are US citizens in the first case, and to a US citizen man and non-citizen woman in the second case, and to a US citizen woman and non-citizen man on the third.

Now, in the case of Obama (presuming he actually was born in the US), even though he was (allegedly) born in the US, to a US citizen mother and to a father legally in the US, he was not born under the *sole* jurisdiction of the US, as his father was the subject of a foreign sovereign state. Thus, as he was not born under the *sole* jurisdiction of the US, he is not a natural born US citizen.

In the cases of Harris, Rubio, Haley and Ramaswamy -- neither of the parents of any of them were US citizens at the times of their births. Thus, even though born in the US to parents who were legally in the US, as their parents were not US citizens, they were not born under the *sole* jurisdiction of the US, and thus are not natural born US citizens.

In the case of Tulsi Gabbard, she was born in American Samoa to parents both of whom were US citizens. Now, as the US is the *sovereign* over American Samoa, even though A.S. in not a US State, she was indeed born under the *sole* jurisdiction of the US, and thus she is a natural born US citizen.