zzrmark

A bent for reasoning would be more appropriate in this case. The poster does not say that his friends are babymaking machines, nor that they reproduce every six months! For all we know they have two US born kids and will have no more.
The sooner people start to realise that they are being manipulated through their own lack of questioning the better. Remember that 'Assume' makes an ass of u and me!

scrubbedexpat099

I have no idea what that means, why would any Country wish to provide such a benefit to foreign nationals?

zzrmark

I assumed you wanted someone with a mathematical bent to work out how many children a couple would have if reproducing every 6 months (which would have been referring to the post you yourself had quoted in your posting!!!).

As for why a country would allow other nationals to sprog up on it's own soil, let us consider a nation where making money is considered the ultimate of goals and where big business 'owns' politicians because of that goal. Very little in this country seems to happen unless someone can turn a buck on it...

excpomea

They are awaiting their 2nd.
Hopfully their last (The fathers comment)

Steve_

Bollocks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli

Well, bollocks to the IMF at any rate.

Steve_

Canada has made it increasingly difficult for people born in the US over the years, to date it hasn't really become apparent because the relevant people are too young but the Tories changed the law so you could only pass on citizenship to one generation, so if your child is born in the US and you were born in Canada, that child gets Canadian citizenship but your child can't do the same thing.

It started to cause various problems with people being born say in Algeria and ending up stateless so the Liberals rolled it back slightly so you can apply for PR status for the child provided they do it prior to being 21, but I'm sure people who were born in the US incidentally will forget to do it.

It wasn't that long ago that people were born in the US simply because the nearest hospital was there. Quite often people are shipped to the US to give birth because the neonatal ICU is at capacity for example, so they have no choice in it.

BritInParis

The IMF lists 39 countries as being 'advanced economies'. Of those 39 only two, the United States and Canada, have unrestricted jus soli citizenship laws.

Steve_

It's all marketing though, if they knew about the tax consequences of it I doubt they'd be as keen, especially the Russians.

Anyway the 14th Amendment isn't going to be changed.

Steve_

Yes I edited my post before you posted but I disagree with the way that is characterized, I hear it quite often. It's basically an anti-immigrant argument because (a) the IMF definition isn't really relevant (because if they're doing it so the parents can immigrate, circumstances could be very different by the time the child grows up) and (b) "unrestricted" jus soli is a matter of opinion. It's not terribly hard to meet the French requirement for jus soli for example.

What makes it attractive to do it in the US is more to do with the fact that the child can sponsor in the parents, which is why it doesn't happen in Canada as often (although it does happen). That is the more unusual factor and that's a law they're talking about changing.

The Bill in Congress would make it into a non-immigrant category for the parents without work authorization, but personally I think it would make more sense for there to be a quota.

BritInParis

It's a statement of fact. You may not like it or the way it is used as a political tool but it doesn't change it from being accurate or not. The IMF, unsurprisingly, isn't making an argument for or against unrestricted jus soli citizenship and neither am I.

Steve_

It's not a statement of fact, by definition it's a statement of two opinions.

BritInParis

Which IMF advanced economy, other than the United States and Canada, has unrestricted jus soli citizenship then?

Steve_

Chile and Argentina.

It's a contrived question that accepts two opinions at face value.

It's like saying which football player that Sports Illustrated says is the best has broken the law the most times? The answer doesn't in any way inform you of anything. You might be able to answer it but their opinion is subjective and "breaking the law" is somewhat subjective.

Are Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay etc. for example undeveloped? Chile ranks ahead of Portugal, and Argentina ranks ahead of Russia.

BritInParis

It's not contrived, it's qualified; if SanDiegogirl had said 'no developed country other than the US or Canada' then you could argue for Chile and Argentina but she didn't.

Steve_

Contrived

adjective
1. obviously planned or forced; artificial; strained: a contrived story.

And that question meets that definition.

Like I said originally, bollocks to the IMF. Chile and Argentina are in the same ballpark as Portugal and I don't think too many people would argue that Portugal is not a developed country.

The reason this "birther" tourism is happening is because of perception caused by marketing.