|This page was nominated for deletion on 4 August 2008. The result of the discussion was Keep, no prejudice to merge being agreed to.|
|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): Kmarquez96, Chickennugget0614, Blackhawk archer, Jen.gar15, Kenney11, Saauced, Yeseniagarcia, LorraineLee, FarahA89. Assigned peer reviews: Blackhawk archer, Briauna123, FarahA89.|
|This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): W1527371, Mae555. Assigned peer reviews: Mae555.|
major rewrite and added sources. Morlesg 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I just took out a comment at the bottom of the article that should probably be here: "18 not 21 for children to sponsor parents." This page indicates that it's 21, but does anyone have an official source for either age? 184.108.40.206 21:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I would like to know, how prevalent is this practice? I know this data may be difficult to find, but if someone can, I think this information should be included in the article.User:220.127.116.11
It's pretty prevalent if you consider all the illegal "tourists" coming across our southern border. Canadians also do this. Invasion10 08:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what Canadians should do about all the illegal "tourists" coming across our southern border. Maybe we should, like, close the borders for the winter, eh? --18.104.22.168 (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it's pretty odd/comic that birth tourism appears to be legal in any case except where the person tries to do it covertly: Some prospective mothers misrepresent their intentions of coming to the United States, a violation of U.S. immigration law. However, it is not illegal for a woman to come to the U.S. to give birth.
How common is this?
The article is held in a tone as if the US was under constant siege by pregnant Korean women firstly, secondly it only concerns the USA; I doubt it is unique to that country.Thehairthatdidntgrow 22:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
"Because the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees citizenship to those born in the U.S, it is reported  that some women, wishing their children to be born in the United States, engage in "birth tourism" so that their children become U.S. citizens." What are "some women"? The children do not become U.S. citizens they are born as such under U.S. law. "Under the rules of many countries," What are these "many countries"? "such children have dual citizenship generally until age 18; at which point they must choose one nationality." Again, what jurisdictions fall under this generalisation? The laws differ from country to country, in some dual citizenship is allowed; in some it is not; The is no single 'Unamerica' and this law on citizenship choice on maturity sounds really odd. "This practice is believed to be popular among women in Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan ." Believed by whom? " According to Edward Chang, professor of Asian American Studies at the University of California, Riverside, the practice is popular among the elite of South Korea, since sons of these women can avoid compulsory military service." "Temporary homes for these mothers are often located in residential neighborhoods, which neighbors allege decrease the quality of life in the neighborhood. " The given sources are hardly academical.  does not contain any of the given information. It is an interview of a certain Cataldo, Zamperini and Garcia who are all three are complaining about 'one single' home in their neighbourhood being rented to pregnant Korean tourists. This single example is not enough to generalise about where these "temporary homes" are located; The opinion of Cataldo and Zamperini about the opinion of their neighbours is not sufficient as a source for wikipedia.Thehairthatdidntgrow 22:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
The article anchor baby covers the same topic in much better way. I redirect thereto.Thehairthatdidntgrow 22:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
"Reports suggest this encourages birth tourism.". I don't think this source is satisfactory. It's a report on GOP positioning, not a report on collected facts. And "Reports suggest" is absolutely weasel words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2010 (UTC) .
THis article could have gave a better summary and description of the topic they could have put more details but overall good Daisyrios20 (talk) 06:40, 17 April 2017 (UTC) Drios (talk) 23:40 16 April 2017
Tucson Medical Center
AS near as I can tell, the TMC does not currently offer any package as described in that section, and I can find no evidence that they actually offered it. Also, the only reference I can find is a single newspaper article with minimal input from the TMC. I will edit it to reflect that, but if the TMC never actually offered the package, should that paragraph be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdruid (talk • contribs) 00:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
big chunk of cuts and paste
About half of the section on US Birth Tourism is lifted directly from http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship#2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcdruid (talk • contribs) 00:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
World map is erroneous concerning U.S.
The map indicates that birth tourism is "banned" in certain U.S. states, although the article clearly states (correctly) that it's not. Would someone please correct? (And why would anyone make such a ridiculous claim outside of vandalism??) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)