Ingo Pakleppa

On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:28:04 -0700, James Donovan wrote:

    > Ingo Pakleppa <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>. ..
    >> On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 08:47:17 -0700, Alvena Ferreira wrote:
    >>
    >> > Prence wrote:
    >> >> We would like to travel to USA, have a baby and come back to our home country.
    >> >> We do not need to settle in the US or stay in the country for any period beyond
    >> >> what is absolutely necessary. We are both non-US citizens but have previously
    >> >> traveled extensively within the US and getting any sort of US visa (tourist,
    >> >> business, even student) will not be a problem. Can anyone suggest the
    >> >> modus-operandi that should be employed to do this. I am hoping my child will
    >> >> have a secure future with a US citizenship in hand...
    >> >>
    >> > The other problem you will have is that you may not be able to travel when you
    >> > are that close to delivery. I'm sorry, but this is clearly fraudulent intent for
    >> > entrance into the US, and I don't care for the smell of it. US citizenship is
    >> > not meant to be a ticket for success, but for persons who reside in the US. You
    >> > are blatantly ignoring this, it appears. Alvena
    >>
    >> You know, I would disagree with that. First, US citizenship is not meant for
    >> people who reside in the US. There are many people who reside in the US and aren't
    >> US citizens (yours truly, for instance). And there are many people who are US
    >> citizens and don't reside in the US.
    >>
    >> US citizenship merely indicates an attachment to the country - and they clearly
    >> have this attachment, probably more so than the average "my grandparent was born
    >> here" US citizen.
    >
    > I am sorry, I tend to disagree with you. People often flee to the US in the hope
    > that they can live in the land of milk and honey. We have far too many economic
    > refugees here. If attachment to the country were a criteria for US citizenship,
    > then Canada, Mexico, China, India and several other countries would be empty and
    > all of their people would be in the US. Unfortunately the only thing many people
    > like about this country is the value of the currency.

Attachment to a country is a lot more than the mere desire to live in that
country. It is more akin to the term "patriotism". And somebody who goes to the
length of traveling to the US to have his child here shows that he has a lot of
attachment to the US.

    > Fraud is fraud, and clearly someone coming just to have a baby here is committing
    > such and should be refused entry and promptly deported.

Exactly what act constitutes fraud in your book? As far as I know, there is no law
against this.

    > Obviously, an immigrant would appreciate US citizenship more, simply because they
    > know what it is like to live in another less fortunate country. However, on the
    > other side of the coin, US citizens have nowhere to turn if this country lands up
    > in the toilet, whereas immigrants can simply go back home, often converting their
    > currency at a generous exchange rate and living like royalty back in their home
    > countries. THAT is why citizenship is important to a "my grandparent was born here"
    > citizen than an immigrant.

Actually, you are mistaken in that assumption. Most countries in the world have a law
similar to the US - that is, anybody born there is a citizen of that country (the
only countries I know of without such a rule are Germany, Kuweit and Russia. I
suspect Japan also has a more restrictive rule, but don't know it).

However, there is one critical exception: Germany. According to German law, anybody
who can show German ancestry - even 200 years ago - is considered a German
national. And that means that if something happened in the US, most of the US
population would indeed have a place to go to. This is why Germany in the last few
decades had a huge influx of Russians; 200 years ago, many Germans actually
emigrated east rather than west.

And finally, what you imply doesn't happen frequently is actually a pretty big
industry: US citizens, usually retirees, indeed leave the US in substantial numbers
and live like royalty in other countries. One of the most popular such destinations
is Mexico; there actually is a whole segment of the Mexican economy dedicated to such
economic migrants. And I am talking about WASPs here, not Hispanics. There are other
destinations for retirees, of course.

Ingo

Ingo Pakleppa

On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 20:29:24 -0700, James Donovan wrote:

    > "Dhiraj Sood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >> Although I agree with Alvena from a personal point of view, having a child in the
    >> US on a tourist visa is not illegal. Not yet anyways.
    >>
    >> Please make sure that
    >> a) you have the proper insurance coverage or about $10,000-12,000 in cash (or
    >> better yet, both insurance and money), b) get to the US by your 6th-7th month
    >> of pregnancy c) rent a place to live for 4-5 months,
    >> d) deliver the baby and live here for another month or so to get child's passport,
    >> birth certificate, etc.
    >>
    >> There is no law that prevents or disallows tourists from having babies here.
    >
    >
    > But, an INS inspector can refuse entry for any reason, and in this case immigrant
    > intent is very much possible.

What makes you say that? It's true that the inspector could just deny her admission,
but deny her admission based on immigration intent seems difficult. If anything, her
plan to have a child in the US is evidence that the mother does NOT have immigration
intent (because there is no immigration visa available for her based on the child's
citizenship).

Ingo

Ingo Pakleppa

On Sun, 07 Jul 2002 16:17:25 -0700, Jan wrote:

    > let me get this straight .... anyone can have a baby in the USA and that baby is
    > then a USCitizen ? So if your on holiday from say UK and you have your baby in US
    > what happens if you dont want it to ba a USC ? Surely theres a question of
    > residency here? isnt that what immigration is all about ? confused Jan

Yes, of course. Almost every country in the world does it that way (notable
exceptions are Germany, Kuwait, Russia, and probably a few others I don't
know about).

In the US, this is actually written in the Constitution and would be virtually
impossible to change. It is written in the 14th amendment, which was originally
intended to ensure that blacks are considered US citizens.

Ingo

Ingo Pakleppa

On Mon, 08 Jul 2002 19:00:44 -0700, James Donovan wrote:

    > Many moons ago, I used to work with the NYC Dept. of Social Services (which has now
    > been renamed Human Resources Administration). It was simply shocking to see the
    > number of illegal alien parents applying for benefits. They were perfectly
    > eligible, because their children were born US citizens. It is simply amazing that
    > this sort of thing went on for years and no one even cared to do anything about it.
    > The usual argument of course was given, that illegal aliens are people too.
    >
    > I often wondered why people left their home countries, where they had full rights
    > and freedoms and the ability to work, to come to the US where they had to duck and
    > hide. Working with DSS I had found my answer. These people would abuse the system
    > by having children here and take benefits while our tax dollars funded it. Most
    > didn't care, because they felt that as long as they could get away with it and
    > cover their asses they were ok.

I have the feeling that working for DSS may have left you with a biased sample.
Nobody is arguing that such people exist. But there is a second category of illegal
alien - and a much larger: those who sweep the streets, vacuum our offices, harvest
our vegetables, etc. There is a reason the employer community is lobbying so strongly
against enforcement of immigration laws (although - don't misunderstand me here - I
do think this is wrong).

Basically, there are two main arguments used against illegal immigration: "we pay
their welfare" and "they take our jobs" - but few people realize that these two
arguments are actually contradictory. Personally, I'd be in favor of an essential
worker visa in order to allow such workers to come to the US legally and be protected
by the same labor laws as US citizens.

    > Now most people wonder why welfare is so screwed up and why municipal Governments
    > are so tightly strapped for cash. There is your answer. A hell of alot is being
    > wasted on welfare for people who simply refuse to get up and work (not only on
    > illegal aliens, I must admit).

Thanks for making that clear. I'd like to go one step further and say that, if
anything, illegal immigrants are *less* likely to seek such benefits than US citizens
and legal residents.

    > Imagine when they can take this amount while being illegal, imagine when they are
    > given amnesty and eventually become citizens.

Don't worry, as a general rule, even if there was an amnesty, illegal aliens who
received welfare would be barred from using the amnesty (based on the "public charge"
ground of inadmissibility).

In any case, such an amnesty is exceedingly rare. To my knowledge, there only ever
was one, and that is almost two decades ago (1986).

Ingo

L D Jones

Ingo Pakleppa wrote:
[ ... ]
    > Actually, you are mistaken in that assumption. Most countries in the world have a
    > law similar to the US - that is, anybody born there is a citizen of that country
    > (the only countries I know of without such a rule are Germany, Kuweit and Russia. I
    > suspect Japan also has a more restrictive rule, but don't know it).

I believe the UK is also in this category

    > However, there is one critical exception: Germany. According to German law, anybody
    > who can show German ancestry - even 200 years ago - is considered a German
    > national. And that means that if something happened

This does not appear to be true in all cases. My mother was born in a camp in Germany
during WWII (she was Russian and is now a US citizen). I do not think I can claim
German citizenship on this basis (I looked in to this some time ago). In any case, I
doubt there are any records available.

Dj

"James Donovan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
    > "DJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<[email protected]>...
    > > > Obviously, an immigrant would appreciate US citizenship more, simply because
    > > > they know what it is like to live in another less fortunate country.
    > >
    > > This has got to be the most arrogant statement I've ever seen in a newsgroup.
    > >
    > > Not all immigrants come from less fortunate countries.
    >
    > Most do. Even many Canadians think that they're less fortunate. Why do you think
    > they come here?

Not all of them do come here (The US). Canadians can live and work in the US quite
easily by simply applying for a TN visa right at the border, not many people I know
in Canada take advantage of this.

    >
    > > I know of many immigrants who would argue that their country is in fact
more
    > > fortunate than the US.
    >
    > Then why did they leave?

As stated previously, there are more reasons to come to the US than personal
monetary gain.

    >
    > > Why did they come here? Well believe it or not, not all immigrants are "economic
    > > refugees".
    >
    > But most come here for economic gain. I dare you to tell me that is not true.

I do agree that there are indeed many immigrants who do, but there are other reasons
people come to the US. By the way, this may shock you, but there are people who
immigrate to Canada for the same reasons.

    > > The name of one of the newsgroups you replied to should give you clues
that
    > > people come to the US for reasons other than personal monetary gain.
    >
    > Sorry, they are in the minority. It is a well known fact that alot of marriages are
    > fraudulent. The problem is so bad that INS has regulations in place to combat it.
    >
    > >
    > > I am from Canada, I came to the US to be with my now wife who was not in
a
    > > position to immigrate to Canada. I am a permanent resident (green card holder) of
the
    > > US. If for some reason we ever got divorced, I would, without hesitation, go
    > > back to
Canada.
    >
    > You are a rare breed. Many canucks and people from other countries would fight to
    > stay in the US. Tell me though, if you loved Canada so much, why didn't your wife
    > move there with you? Tell me, if Canada is so great, why are Canadians complaining
    > that their country SUCKS? Why are Canadians doing wannabe American things like
    > stealing American satellite TV? Why did Celine Dion sing God Bless America and not
    > God Bless Canada or something like that?

As I stated in my previous post, my wife was not in a position to immigrate to Canada
(It was either move to the US or not be with my wife - tough choice). I didn't preach
anything about Canada, and I don't even put Canada above the US, I feel they are on
the same level. The US has many advantages over Canada, but the reverse is also true,
Canada has advantages over the US in other areas (free medical care for example).

Why do Canadians steal American satellite TV? Because some people will take something
for free when they don't have to pay for it. And besides, I believe the legality in
Canada for "stealing" satellite TV is a grey area.

    > > Besides, unless you've been to every other country, your making foolish
    > > assumptions.
    >
    > One does not have to go to every other country to know that people are leaving to
    > come to the US in search of the almighty US dollar.

You have to understand that there are more reasons than the US dollar to come to the
US. You have to understand that some people value things differently than you
do. For example, what is the price I am paying by leaving my family, friends and
culture behind in Canada. If it weren't for my wife being in the US, the value
of being close to my family, being able to see all my friends, etc, outweighs
the value of coming to the US.

You have to understand that there are also US citizens, who by choice, left the US to
pursue a life in another country, be it for work, love, whatever. There are US
citizens living in Canada, Europe, and a lot of other places around the world.

DJ

Peter

[email protected] (Stephen Gallagher) wrote in message
news:<[email protected]. com>...
    > (snip)
    > >
    > > Note, BTW, that British law is not as permissive in this regard as US law. A
    > > British-born child of foreign tourists does =not= get automatic British
    > > citizenship; as I understand the law, at least one parent is required to be a
    > > citizen or resident of the UK in order for the child to have British citizenship.
    >
    > Keep in mind, however, that the requirement for one parent to either be British or
    > to be a permanent resident of the UK, in order for a child born in the UK to
    > receive British citizenship, has only applied to births that took place on or after
    > January 1, 1983. Prior to that date, birth in the UK normally did confer British
    > nationality on a person.
    >
    > The Thatcher government added this requirement because they feared an influx of
    > Hong Kong residents who would come to Britain to get full British citizenship for
    > their children. Remember that it was around this time that Britain and China
    > finalized the details for the handover of Hong Kong back to China in 1999.

thought it was 1997.

    >
    > Stephen

Shannnon O'Kell

Dhiraj Sood wrote:

    >When the patients enter the ER, how do you know that they are on a B2 visa?
    >
They often tell us when they arrive and they often send us medical records in advance
(from their home country) for one of our physician's to review. Furthermore, one of
my physicians may write a "visa support letter" to the U.S. consulate asking for
special clearance and then the patient/family member(s) are on their way. If the
physician hasn't done any due diligence regarding finances, he/she may instruct the
patient to enter the institution via the ER. EMTALA is the law which prevents us from
turning anyone away for medical treatment based on their ability to pay or
nationality (a very important law).

    >Further, what makes them savvy?
    >
They are often coached by local physicians and/or family members about the best way
to get treated without having to lay out any of their own cash. Furthermore, the NY
State medicaid offices are interested in enrollment numbers and are not interested in
investigating whether or not someone has residency. We had someone last week actually
fill out the Medicaid froms from Ecuador and used their Grandmother's address in
Queens to prove residency. We also had a patient recently purchase a passport and
visa from another child in order for the daughter to recieve treatment here in New
York compliments of Medicaid. INS was contacted, but they are too busy on other
issues for this show up on their radar. Her bill has exceeded 1.2 million dollars and
she has recently returned home to the DR.

    > The fact that they "showed up" in the ER due to a not-so-real emergency or they
    > "know" that their operational procedure will be supported by NY Medicaid?
    >
No, these patients are coming here for very big ticket items ($100,000+),
i.e.cardiothoracic surgery (CABGs, Mitral Valve Replacements, etc, ), Oncology,
Pediatrics, Solid Organ Transplantations, etc. Yes, these patients know that they
will be supported by Medicaid.

    > Are you indicating that your hospital has charged NY Medicaid in the past to cover
    > the cost for these practices?
    >
It doesn't work that way. Medicaid has an office which processes the applications and
administers the distribution of funds. Even when we attempt to advise Medicaid of
potential fraud, they are not interested nor do they have the manpower to chase down
every potential abuse. In order to get Medicaid in New York you don't have to prove
residency, you only have show intent to reside (like a relatives monthly rent
statement). Tyring to seperate those individuals who are residing in New York versus
those that travel here specifically for their healthcare is almost impossible without
some real draconian measures which may end up violating civil liberties.

    >
    >Thanks.
    >
    >
    >Shannnon O'Kelley <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:[email protected]...
    >
    >
    >>As an administrator in a NY city hospital, we often see "abuses" of this type, but
    >>are essentially unable to do anything about it. In some parts of the world, women
    >>wear garments which can conceal the fact that they are pregnant and I doubt that a
    >>U.S. consulate interviewer routinely asks woment about their status, (i.e. pregnant
    >>or just heavy?). There are also those lgitimiate cases in which a family may seek
    >>assistance for high risk OB deliveries. In any case, this is a very interesting
    >>issue and one which will be dificult to solve while attempting to protect our
    >>borders, provide international access to our healthcare and to provide
    >>compassionate humanitarian care when patients option is limited in their home
    >>country. We have even seen patients savy enough to enter the U.S. on an existing B2
    >>and then show up in ER knowing that their healthcare dollars will be paid by NY
    >>Medicaid.
    >>
    >>James Donovan wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>>Just out of curiousity...
    >>>
    >>>Why do you want to have your baby in the USA? You know of course that your child
    >>>won't be able to petition for your green card until he/she turns 21 and that the
    >>>child will have to be domiciled (living) in the USA too right? You know also that
    >>>the child will have to be making enough money to support his or herself as well as
    >>>the both of you right?
    >>>
    >>>This of course also assumes that your child will still like you enough to petition
    >>>for you. Children change so much when they grow up, you never know what to expect.
    >>>Generally, it's not worth the hassle, and morally it's not right using your child
    >>>for your own personal gain.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>[email protected] (Prence) wrote in message
    >>>
    >>>
    >news:<[email protected] .com>...
    >
    >
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>We would like to travel to USA, have a baby and come back to our home country. We
    >>>>do not need to settle in the US or stay in the country for any period beyond what
    >>>>is absolutely necessary.
    >>>>
    >>>>We are both non-US citizens but have previously traveled extensively within the
    >>>>US and getting any sort of US visa (tourist, business, even student) will not be
    >>>>a problem.
    >>>>
    >>>>Can anyone suggest the modus-operandi that should be employed to do this. I am
    >>>>hoping my child will have a secure future with a US citizenship in hand...
    >>>>
    >>>>Help please... PRENCE
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >
    >
    >
    >

Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta
http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1"> <title></title>
</head> <body> <br> <br> Dhiraj Sood wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]"> <pre
wrap="">When the patients enter the ER, how do you know that they are on a B2
visa?</pre> </blockquote> They often tell us when they arrive and they often send us
medical records in advance (from their home country) for one of our physician's to
review. &nbsp;Furthermore, one of my physicians may write a "visa support letter" to
the U.S. consulate asking for special clearance and then the patient/family member(s)
are on their way. &nbsp;If the physician hasn't done any due diligence regarding
finances, he/she may instruct the patient to enter the institution via the ER.
&nbsp;EMTALA is the law which prevents us from turning anyone away for medical
treatment based on their ability to pay or nationality (a very important law).<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]"> <pre wrap="">
Further, what makes them savvy?</pre> </blockquote> They are often coached by local
physicians and/or family members about the best way to get treated without having to
lay out any of their own cash. &nbsp;Furthermore, the NY State medicaid offices are
interested in enrollment numbers and are not interested in investigating whether or
not someone has residency. &nbsp;We had someone last week actually fill out the
Medicaid froms from Ecuador and used their Grandmother's address in Queens to prove
residency. &nbsp;We also had a patient recently purchase a passport and visa from
another child in order for the daughter to recieve treatment here in New York
&nbsp;compliments of Medicaid. &nbsp;INS was contacted, but they are too busy on
other issues for this show up on their radar. &nbsp;Her bill has exceeded 1.2 million
dollars and she has recently returned home to the DR.<br> <br> <blockquote
type="cite" cite="[email protected]"> <pre
wrap=""> The fact that they "showed up" in the ER due to a not-so-real emergency or
they "know" that their operational procedure will be supported by NY Medicaid?</pre>
</blockquote> No, these patients are coming here for very big ticket items
($100,000+),
i.e.cardiothoracic surgery (CABGs, Mitral Valve Replacements, etc, ), Oncology,
Pediatrics, Solid Organ Transplantations, etc. &nbsp;Yes, these patients know
that they will be supported by Medicaid. &nbsp;<br> <br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]"> <pre
wrap=""> Are you indicating that your hospital has charged NY Medicaid in the
past to cover the cost for these practices?</pre> </blockquote> It doesn't work
that way. &nbsp;Medicaid has an office which processes the applications and
administers the distribution of funds. &nbsp;Even when we attempt to advise
Medicaid of potential fraud, they are not interested nor do they have the
manpower to chase down every potential abuse. &nbsp;In order to get Medicaid in
New York you don't have to prove residency, you only have show intent to reside
(like a relatives monthly rent statement). &nbsp;Tyring to seperate those
individuals who are residing in New York versus those that travel here
specifically for their healthcare is almost impossible without some real
draconian measures which may end up violating civil liberties. &nbsp;<br> <br>
<br> <blockquote type="cite"
cite="[email protected]"> <pre
wrap="">

Thanks.

Shannnon O'Kelley <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:[email protected]">&lt;[email protected]&gt;</a> wrote in message <a
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="news:[email protected]">news:[email protected]</a>... </pre>
<blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">As an administrator in a NY city hospital, we
often see "abuses" of this type, but are essentially unable to do anything about it.
In some parts of the world, women wear garments which can conceal the fact that they
are pregnant and I doubt that a U.S. consulate interviewer routinely asks woment
about their status, (i.e. pregnant or just heavy?). There are also those lgitimiate
cases in which a family may seek assistance for high risk OB deliveries. In any
case, this is a very interesting issue and one which will be dificult to solve while
attempting to protect our borders, provide international access to our healthcare
and to provide compassionate humanitarian care when patients option is limited in
their home country. We have even seen patients savy enough to enter the U.S. on an
existing B2 and then show up in ER knowing that their healthcare dollars will be
paid by NY Medicaid.

James Donovan wrote:

</pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Just out of curiousity...

Why do you want to have your baby in the USA? You know of course that your child
won't be able to petition for your green card until he/she turns 21 and that the
child will have to be domiciled (living) in the USA too right? You know also that the
child will have to be making enough money to support his or herself as well as the
both of you right?

This of course also assumes that your child will still like you enough to petition
for you. Children change so much when they grow up, you never know what to expect.
Generally, it's not worth the hassle, and morally it's not right using your child for
your own personal gain.

<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto[email protected]">[email protected]</a> (Prence) wrote in message
</pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!TEST->news:<a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]
le.com">&lt;[email protected] oogle.com&gt;</a>... </pre>
<blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote
type="cite"> <pre wrap="">We would like to travel to USA, have a baby and come back
to our home country. We do not need to settle in the US or stay in the country for
any period beyond what is absolutely necessary.

We are both non-US citizens but have previously traveled extensively within the
US and getting any sort of US visa (tourist, business, even student) will not be
a problem.

Can anyone suggest the modus-operandi that should be employed to do this. I am hoping
my child will have a secure future with a US citizenship in hand...

Help please... PRENCE

</pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!TEST->

</pre> </blockquote> <br> </body> </html

James Donovan

"DJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

    > I feel they are on the same level. The US has many advantages over Canada, but the
    > reverse is also true, Canada has advantages over the US in other areas (free
    > medical care for example).

I make enough US dollars to make free health care a moot point. So do many other
Americans. Health insurance in the USA is cheap for most people, and subsidized for
low income families.

    >
    > Why do Canadians steal American satellite TV? Because some people will take
    > something for free when they don't have to pay for it.

Alot of Canadians subscribe to American Satellite TV and pay more for it than
comparable Canadian cable or satellite. I have seen many Canadians complaining that
Canadian TV is boring and that it generally sucks.

    > And besides, I believe the legality in Canada for "stealing" satellite TV is a
    > grey area.

Bullshit. The recent decision by the Canadian supreme court says otherwise. CanAm
satellites is going to be fighting it from a constitutional angle, and to me that it
a fool's desparate attempt to stay in business peddling an illegal product.

    > > One does not have to go to every other country to know that people are leaving to
    > > come to the US in search of the almighty US dollar.
    >
    > You have to understand that there are more reasons than the US dollar to come
    > to the US.

You are right. People come here because we are a developed country with a far better
infrastructure and quality of life than their home country.

    > You have to understand that some people value things differently than you
    > do. For example, what is the price I am paying by leaving my family, friends and
    > culture behind in Canada. If it weren't for my wife being in the US, the value
    > of being close to my family, being able to see all my friends, etc, outweighs
    > the value of coming to the US.

I think the value of the dollar outweighs everything.

Xtrynytix

    >I think the value of the dollar outweighs everything.

Not for me it didn't.

Couldn't wait to leave.....there truly is no place like home, regardless of what some
may say. Of course, I come from the UK so my quality of life is excellent.

I could see however, how some may feel their quality of life would be far
greater in the USA than the country they are living in, but for me, that
certainly wasn't the case.

Des

Citizenship as a concept is based on two principles:

1. ius sanguinis (i.e. blood relations)
2. ius solis (i.e. the ground you were born on)

Countries such as the US and France are based on the concept of ius solis - anyone
born on their grounds will automatically be a citizen. (except for children of
diplomats).

Germany used to be based on ius sanguinis, i.e. you used to get citizenship based on
whether one of your parents holds a German passport. Which is why immigration was
often easy for people whose one grandparent was German before emigrating, while
people born in Germany could not claim citizenship. However, these laws have been
changed during the overhaul of the immigration laws, to be more aligned with the
principle of ius solis. A child born in Germany today can claim German citizenship,
even if both parents are foreign citizens.

- Des

Ingo Pakleppa

On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 06:21:15 -0700, L D Jones wrote:

    > Ingo Pakleppa wrote:
    > [ ... ]
    >> Actually, you are mistaken in that assumption. Most countries in the world have a
    >> law similar to the US - that is, anybody born there is a citizen of that country
    >> (the only countries I know of without such a rule are Germany, Kuweit and Russia.
    >> I suspect Japan also has a more restrictive rule, but don't know it).
    > I believe the UK is also in this category

This is news to me. Of course, things may have changed since I last read about that -
quite a few years ago.

    >> However, there is one critical exception: Germany. According to German law,
    >> anybody who can show German ancestry - even 200 years ago - is considered a German
    >> national. And that means that if something happened
    > This does not appear to be true in all cases. My mother was born in a camp in
    > Germany during WWII (she was Russian and is now a US citizen). I do not think I can
    > claim German citizenship on this basis (I looked in to this some time ago). In any
    > case, I doubt there are any records available.

You are right, that's exactly what I was trying to say: Germany is one of the few
countries in the world that does not have the "jus soli" (birth on their soil conveys
citizenship) but rather the "jus sagui" (citizenship is conveyed through bloodlines).
I hope I didn't mangle the spelling too bad. Since your mother was born to Russian
parents, she would not get German citizenship, and you couldn't either. In fact, many
people born under such circumstances ended up with no citizenship at all. There is a
recent legal case in the US surrounding such a person that went all the way to the
Supreme Court, see Zadvydas v. Davis. In the same matter, the US also tried to sue
Germany in the World Court to force them to implement a US-style implementation of
citizenship (I don't think that case ever went anywhere).

That is, unless you could show that your grandparents, or great-grandparents, or
somebody even further down the line did emigrate FROM Germany to Russia (most of
these emigrations happened in the 1700s, as far as I know). If you can demonstrate
such ancestry, then you should be able to get German nationality, and then
citizenship soon thereafter.

Ingo

Des

Germany's immigration laws have changed. As far as I know, if a child of foriegn
citizens living in Germany is born there today, it can claim citizenship.

- Des

    > Yes, of course. Almost every country in the world does it that way (notable
    > exceptions are Germany, Kuwait, Russia, and probably a few others I don't
    > know about).

Ingo Pakleppa

On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 17:19:15 -0700, James Donovan wrote:

    > "DJ" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    >
    >> I feel they are on the same level. The US has many advantages over Canada, but the
    >> reverse is also true, Canada has advantages over the US in other areas (free
    >> medical care for example).
    >
    > I make enough US dollars to make free health care a moot point. So do many other
    > Americans. Health insurance in the USA is cheap for most people, and subsidized for
    > low income families.

Huh? US health care is the most expensive in the world, and there are about 40
million uninsured people who make too much money to qualify for the subsidized health
care that you mention. Did you ever check out how much a health insurance policy
costs if the employer doesn't provide it? You can easily spend several hundred
dollars on it, often more than people spend on rent (OK, not here in expensive
California, but in other parts of the country).

The only good point about US health care is that it also is the highest quality in
the world.

As a matter of fact, in worldwide quality-of-life surveys, the US usually is around
the tenth or so position, and usually trails Canada, and usually because of the lack
of affordable health care. These are surveys that take into account not just
earnings, but also benefits (of course, the actual weighting may well be subjective).

    >> > One does not have to go to every other country to know that people are leaving
    >> > to come to the US in search of the almighty US dollar.
    >>
    >> You have to understand that there are more reasons than the US dollar to come to
    >> the US.
    >
    > You are right. People come here because we are a developed country with a far
    > better infrastructure and quality of life than their home country.

There are many reasons. Personally, I came to the US for a freedom that I could not
enjoy in my country of citizenship. I could have made a very comfortable living
there, too.

Ingo

Ingo Pakleppa

(could you turn off HTML. It makes the post very difficult to read).

On Tue, 09 Jul 2002 13:18:13 -0700, Shannnon O'Kelley wrote:

    > Dhiraj Sood wrote:<br> <blockquote type="cite"
    > cite="[email protected]"> <pre
    > wrap="">When the patients enter the ER, how do you know that they are on a B2
    > visa?</pre> </blockquote> They often tell us when they arrive and they often send
    > us medical records in advance (from their home country) for one of our physician'
    > to review. &nbsp;Furthermore, one of my physicians may write a "visa support
    > letter" to the U.S. consulate asking for special clearance and then the
    > patient/family member(s) are on their way. &nbsp;If the physician hasn't done any
    > due diligence regarding finances, he/she may instruct the patient to enter the
    > institution via the ER. &nbsp;EMTALA is the law which prevents us from turning
    > anyone away for medical treatment based on their ability to pay or nationality (a
    > very important law).<br>

Patients who apply for a B-2 visa for medical treatment need to show that they are
able to pay for the treatment without relying on welfare or the like (the "public
charge" provision). Otherwise, the visa would be denied. Department of State recently
issued a memo re-emphasizing this.

    > Further, what makes them savvy?</pre> </blockquote> They are often coached by local
    > physicians and/or family members about the best way to get treated without having
    > to lay out any of their own cash. &nbsp;Furthermore, the NY State medicaid offices
    > are interested in enrollment numbers and are not interested in investigating
    > whether or not someone has residency. &nbsp;We had someone last week actually fill
    > out the Medicaid froms from Ecuador and used their Grandmother's address in Queens
    > to prove residency. &nbsp;We also had a patient recently purchase a passport and
    > visa from another child in order for the daughter to recieve treatment here in New
    > York &nbsp;compliments of Medicaid. &nbsp;INS was contacted, but they are too busy
    > on other issues for this show up on their radar. &nbsp;Her bill has exceeded 1.2
    > million dollars and she has recently returned home to the DR.<br> <br>

You seem to be mixing two issues here. This person apparently would not have made the
arrangements with the doctors that you described in the previous paragraph. Those
arrangements would have required disclosing her actual identity and prevented her
from getting the benefit.

In any case, this seems to be pretty much unrelated to the issue of somebody coming
to the US to have a child. Either, this person already was in the US in the first
place - in that case, she would have come for a different reason and just was
unfortunate to require such expensive medical treatment. Or she did travel to the US
specifically for the medical treatment - but in that case, her trip would have had a
very specific purpose.

    > <blockquote type="cite"
    > cite="[email protected]"> <pre wrap="">
    > The fact that they "showed up" in the ER due to a not-so-real emergency or they
    > "know" that their operational procedure will be supported by NY Medicaid?</pre>
    > </blockquote> No, these patients are coming here for very big ticket items
    > ($100,000+),
    > i.e.cardiothoracic surgery (CABGs, Mitral Valve Replacements, etc, ), Oncology,
    > Pediatrics, Solid Organ Transplantations, etc. &nbsp;Yes, these patients know
    > that they will be supported by Medicaid. &nbsp;<br>

I don't think anybody denies that such things happen occasionally. The question is
whether they happen frequently or are rare exceptions. You are in a position to see
many such cases, but that doesn't mean that this represents a substantial number.
It's kind of like a trainer in a fitness studio concluding that obesity doesn't exist
because all his clients are fit and trim. In reality, it's just a bias introduced by
the situation.

    > <br> <blockquote type="cite"
    > cite="[email protected]"> <pre wrap="">
    > Are you indicating that your hospital has charged NY Medicaid in the past to cover
    > the cost for these practices?</pre> </blockquote> It doesn't work that way.
    > &nbsp;Medicaid has an office which processes the applications and administers the
    > distribution of funds. &nbsp;Even when we attempt to advise Medicaid of potential
    > fraud, they are not interested nor do they have the manpower to chase down every
    > potential abuse. &nbsp;In order to get Medicaid in New York you don't have to prove
    > residency, you only have show intent to reside (like a relatives monthly rent
    > statement). &nbsp;Tyring to seperate those individuals who are residing in New York
    > versus those that travel here specifically for their healthcare is almost
    > impossible without some real draconian measures which may end up violating civil
    > liberties.

It would also probably be unconstitutional. The US Supreme Court recently struck down
a similar law in California based on the theory that it unconstitutionally restricts
the freedom of movement of US citizens.

    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    >
    > Shannnon O'Kelley <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
    > href="mailto:[email protected]">&lt;[email protected]&gt;</a> wrote in message <a
    > class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
    > href="news:[email protected]">news:[email protected]</a>... </pre>
    > <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">As an administrator in a NY city hospital, we
    > often see "abuses" of this type, but are essentially unable to do anything about
    > it. In some parts of the world, women wear garments which can conceal the fact that
    > they are pregnant and I doubt that a U.S. consulate interviewer routinely asks
    > woment about their status, (i.e. pregnant or just heavy?). There are also those
    > lgitimiate cases in which a family may seek assistance for high risk OB deliveries.
    > In any case, this is a very interesting issue and one which will be dificult to
    > solve while attempting to protect our borders, provide international access to our
    > healthcare and to provide compassionate humanitarian care when patients option is
    > limited in their home country. We have even seen patients savy enough to enter the
    > U.S. on an existing B2 and then show up in ER knowing that their healthcare dollars
    > will be paid by NY Medicaid.
    >
    > James Donovan wrote:
    >
    > </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Just out of curiousity...
    >
    > Why do you want to have your baby in the USA? You know of course that your child
    > won't be able to petition for your green card until he/she turns 21 and that the
    > child will have to be domiciled (living) in the USA too right? You know also that
    > the child will have to be making enough money to support his or herself as well as
    > the both of you right?
    >
    > This of course also assumes that your child will still like you enough to petition
    > for you. Children change so much when they grow up, you never know what to expect.
    > Generally, it's not worth the hassle, and morally it's not right using your child
    > for your own personal gain.
    >
    >
    > <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
    > href="mailto[email protected]">[email protected]</a> (Prence) wrote in message
    > </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!TEST->news:<a
    > class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:[email protected]
    > ogle.com">&lt;3f00e5ca.0207070738.3bc57303@posting .google.com&gt;</a>... </pre>
    > <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote
    > type="cite"> <pre wrap="">We would like to travel to USA, have a baby and come back
    > to our home country. We do not need to settle in the US or stay in the country for
    > any period beyond what is absolutely necessary.
    >
    > We are both non-US citizens but have previously traveled extensively within the US
    > and getting any sort of US visa (tourist, business, even student) will not be a
    > problem.
    >
    > Can anyone suggest the modus-operandi that should be employed to do this. I am
    > hoping my child will have a secure future with a US citizenship in hand...
    >
    > Help please... PRENCE
    >
    >
    > </pre> </blockquote> </blockquote> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""><!TEST->
    >
    > </pre> </blockquote> <br> </body> </html