On October 29th the paper ran an article on the Korean websites that organize tours for pregnant women to Guam for the purpose of giving birth there and acquiring US citizenship for their children. The next day the paper reported that one of the websites went down. Actually, now that I checked both websites mentioned in the article are no longer working.
I've heard that the term "anchor baby" is considered offensive these days. Well, I'm much more offended by women stealing US citizenship for their children, so once we put a stop to that we can work on terminology, k thx.
12 comments:
Why are you offended? I can see why it is sad that people feel the need to do this, but i can't for the life of me see why it would offend you.
I was comparing the act to the term used for it. For people to say "anchor baby" is offensive is ignoring the people who go out and procure US citizenshp for their kid. These aren't down-on-their-luck families doing this because they have no choice, these are families looking to take advantage of a loophole to procure citizenship for their babies. The contrast is especially strong in a country where dual citizenship isn't allowed and where I, for example, could never become a Korean without renouncing my US citizenship. Moreover, a kid between me and my foreigner girlfriend born in Korea wouldn't be Korean. Even then, let's be honest, we all wouldn't be Korean anyway. But the practice of anchor babies is disgusting and I needs to be stopped from our end.
I don't know about that. There's the same policy in Canada, which shocked me at first, but really, how does it affect/effect you? If you have children here, do you want them to be Korean? My husband and I have already agreed that our children will be Canadian. We see no point in limiting them because of a passport and perhaps forced military service.
I agree with Brian, I think this is some serious BS. I don't have any stats or info to back it up, it's just BS in my opinion. These people are obviously well off enough to pay a tour company for this, so the cost of healthcare here in Korea isn't prohibiting them any. I think the mainland news needs to be informed about this. Anybody up for a protest? LOL
You know, the visa waiver program just went through, and though there aren't millions of Koreans aren't doing these tours, there are enough tour groups and enough participants to make people worry. Especially when the same rights aren't reciprocated in South Korea.
Having exploited every possible loophole to enjoy my life, I can't really complain about people doing this. In fact, I have no problem with people coming to the States to live. Why not? I don't own it. I contributed very little to its development, and it you argue that 'we' as a collective made America, then you go down that slippery slope of group-think which we so adore about Koreans anyways. And to say that it's hypocritical of a country that doesn't allow the same thing is to insinuate that somehow middle class Koreans have an ability to change this law. While you could say 'They could protest', when was the last time Americans got up and screamed 'More Mexicans!'. Having said that, on some base level, this still annoys the every living shit out of me.
If you really cared about Guam, you would be able to spell it correctly.
Thanks, Bob. I'm sure Guam is a lovely place, but the issue really isn't Guam. After all, this goes on in other US territories and states, too. One of the websites I linked also advertises tours to Saipan.
The fact that dual citizenship isn't allowed in Korea simply means that Korea is behind the US in terms of freedom for its citizens. That freedom is to be supported, we shouldn't be advocating regression just so we can, in a perverse and not particularly savory way, match Korea. We are allowed into Korea because we have certain skills and talents, which is all Koreans are guilty of trying to obtain. Soon Korea will permit dual citizenship, and it will be of direct benefit to any number of people reading this, and quite possibly you. None of which stops the concept of "anchor babies" being a disappointing indictment of certain aspects of Korea today, however.
Good points, but my objection isn't over immigrants gaining US citizenship. On the Wikipedia entry for "anchor baby" it goes into why the term is considered offensive, and applies that term to any immigrant child. My problem is with people essentially taking a vacation to the US or one of its territories, having a kid, then going back to Korea with US citizenship for it. There should be a residency requirement if not for the parents, then for the child after birth in order to qualify.
One can't blame these moms for taking advantage of one of the few countries in the world offering unrestricted birthright citizenship. The fault lies not with them but with our government for not valuing citizenship in our nation enough to bestow only upon those who are or who will likely become part of our nation.
I find it curious that in media content dealing with the topic of immigration, the children of immigrants are called US citizens, not Americans, emphasizing their legal status, rather than their national identity. There are US citizens and there are Americans. Not all US citizens are Americans and not all Americans are US citizens.
What advantages do you think they get by having their children born in the United States (e.g., Guam or CNMI) and getting US citizenship?
And to Sonagi and anyone else who would do so, where do you draw the line for denying citizenship to people born on US soil? Children of US citizens only? Should you include children of green-card holders?
How about the children of people legally residing in the United States but on non-immigrant resident visas, like long-term students who live in the United States sometimes for years or even decades?
This is a question, not a speech. I look forward to your opinions.
Post a Comment