Muslim Anchor Baby Bizinisz

Muslim-owned hotel in New York offers easy citizenship “birth tourism”

Making more Muslim American citizens, cheap. And the way Turkey is going, it is increasingly unlikely that the children born in New York via this method will grow up to be ardent secularists. “New York hotel pioneers birth tourism,” from Breaking Travel News, June 10 (thanks to Logans Warning) via JW:

A New York hotel is staking its claim to have invented a new hospitality niche – birth tourism. The Marmara Manhattan offers “an exclusive package for new mothers that wish to give birth in the USA”, with the additional bonus of the newborn child gaining US citizenship.

Pro & Con: ‘Anchor’ Babies: No More U.S. Citizenship

The hotel, which is part of the Turkish hospitality chain, exploits the 14th amendment to the US constitution, which states that all children born on American soil “are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside”.

The Marmara Manhattan, which is located in New York’s Upper East Side, told The Times: “What we offer is simply a one-bedroom suite accommodation for $5,100, plus taxes, for a month, with airport transfer, baby cradle and a gift set for the mother.” There are also medical fees of about £20,500.

However the price is a cheap and easy one to pay for US citizenship. Many will eventually use the newborn – known as an “anchor baby” – as a stepping stone for the immigration of extended family.

The hotel has so far sold 15 of the packages.

According to the US Citizenship and Immigration Services, the practice is entirely legal as long as the women can pay their medical bills.

However there are noises being made in Washington to close the loophole.
Gary Miller, a Republican congressman, told The Times: “They come to this country and have babies. The children are citizens. The children are eligible to go to school.

They receive food stamps and social programmes. The American taxpayers are paying for it….



The U.S. should pass H.R. 1868—the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009—so all babies born on U.S. soil are no longer automatically made citizens. Pro or con?


by Roy Beck, NumbersUSA

Maternity tourism is just the beginning of the silliness of birthright citizenship that goes to the babies of foreign students, temporary foreign workers, international travelers—and the millions who break the law to criminally enter this country.

All told, federal law (not the Constitution) gives citizenship to an estimated minimum 400,000 babies each year who don’t have even one parent who is a U.S. citizen or permanent legal immigrant. This is a huge impediment to efforts to stabilize U.S. population to allow for environmental sustainability. And it is a great incentive for more illegal immigration.

Each of these babies becomes an anchor who retards deportation of unlawfully present parents—and who eventually will be an anchor for entire families and villages as chain migration leads to the immigration of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and cousins.

Birthright citizenship is an antiquated practice that has been abandoned by nearly all wealthy nations and emerging nations (recently India and Indonesia) and by the majority of poor nations.

The Supreme Court has ruled only that the Constitution requires babies of legal immigrants be U.S. citizens. It is time to join the modern world, pass H.R. 1868 (Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009), and limit citizenship to babies who have at least one parent who is a citizen or legal immigrant.


by Rob Randhava, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights

Scaling back the 14th Amendment’s definition of birthright citizenship, a cornerstone of civil rights in our country, would compound the problem of illegal immigration instead of addressing it.

Proposals to do this are based on the concern that immigrants give birth to children on U.S. soil for the purpose of using their citizenship to stay here. Even if there was evidence that this is common—and there isn’t—it would be largely beside the point: It’s indisputable that most people come here illegally because they desperately want work, employers are thrilled to provide it, and government usually turns a blind eye.

In addition to probably being un-Constitutional, H.R. 1868 wouldn’t alter that arrangement. Instead, denying citizenship to children would simply increase the number of people here who live outside the law—and it’s unrealistic to think that they’d be deported or driven out en masse. It would also raise countless practical questions. Would hospitals have to decide which mothers are here legally? Would the children of those children, and their grandchildren, also be deemed illegal? If so, would the resulting modern-day caste system help, or heighten, the concerns that native-born workers have about immigrant labor?

The best way to reduce illegal immigration is by addressing both its supply and demand, through realistic enforcement and better legal channels that meet business needs without causing unfair wage competition. Ending birthright citizenship would just change the su

2 thoughts on “Muslim Anchor Baby Bizinisz”

  1. quote: ‘there is no evidence that this is common’…

    What planet does that guy live on?

    Anyway, he might be right about it not being the solution, unfortunately this is a strategy being used by muslims in all our lands. They keep telling us what they do and our ‘thinkers’ keep pushing their heads up their behinds further so they don’t have to hear them.

Comments are closed.