View Full Version : As war on corruption mounts, China’s rich flee to America
As war on corruption mounts, China’s rich flee to America. What someone thinks China isn't for the capitalist economy? Yeap we don't kill our mafia or druglords or corporate embezzlers.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/china/140131/war-corruption-ramps-china-s-wealthy-flock-america
Here's but another ticket to the good life...
Chinese Anchor Babies – A Legal Immigration Loophole
Posted on 13 February, 2014 by Rick Wells
Saipan is just four hours away from the Chinese mainland and that proximity has created a booming business in ABC’s or as we in America refer to them, anchor babies. No visa is required for travel to Saipan and it is considered to be United States soil.
While the number of anchor babies was only 8 in 2009, the number in 2012 had grown to 282, with no signs of letting up.
In fact, a whole sector of tourism specialization is springing up around the citizenship scheme.
While this isn’t illegal, it certainly is something that needs to be addressed. The 14th amendment just continues to foster immigration abuse wherever it can be exploited.
http://gopthedailydose.com/2014/02/13/chinese-anchor-babies-legal-immigration-loophole/
Trapper John
02-15-2014, 18:04
As war on corruption mounts, China’s rich flee to America. What someone thinks China isn't for the capitalist economy? Yeap we don't kill our mafia or druglords or corporate embezzlers.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/china/140131/war-corruption-ramps-china-s-wealthy-flock-america
Create a permanent political class - voila! - Corruption!!
...The 14th amendment just continues to foster immigration abuse wherever it can be exploited.
The 14th amendment wasn't always interpreted in that way. It's initial purpose was to grant full citizenship rights to newly-freed slaves after the Civil War.
Section 1 reads as follows: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
The key to the 14th amendment are those few words "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..". It was understood that the children of foreign nationals (e.g. diplomats) born on American soil did not automatically become American citizens, because neither they, nor their parents were "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States or of the state wherein they reside, since they are not American citizens.
They were subject to the jurisdiction of their home countries.
However, with the 1965 Immigration law changes - thanks to that... individual, Ted Kennedy, a horrible precedent was set by the left in their zeal to "remake" America. And that is why we need strict-constitutionalist judges and elected "representatives" that represent the people of these United States, not ethnic advocacy groups or Democratic demagogues.
Here is a snippet from Ann Coulter's article (from Human Events):
"For a hundred years, that was how it stood, with only one case adding the caveat that children born to LEGAL permanent residents of the U.S., gainfully employed, and who were not employed by a foreign government would also be deemed citizens under the 14th Amendment. (United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 1898.)
And then, out of the blue in 1982, Justice Brennan slipped a footnote into his 5-4 opinion in Plyler v. Doe, asserting that “no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment ‘jurisdiction’ can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful.” (Other than the part about one being lawful and the other not.)
Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement — who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper."
http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/original_intent.html
http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/birthright_citizenship_and_the.html
http://www.humanevents.com/2010/08/04/justice-brennans-footnote-gave-us-anchor-babies/
http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/jlfs/article/viewArticle/497
Brennan’s authority for this lunatic statement was that it appeared in a 1912 book written by Clement L. Bouve. (Yes, THE Clement L. Bouve — the one you’ve heard so much about over the years.) Bouve was not a senator, not an elected official, certainly not a judge — just some guy who wrote a book.
So on one hand we have the history, the objective, the author’s intent and 100 years of history of the 14th Amendment, which says that the 14th Amendment does not confer citizenship on children born to illegal immigrants.
On the other hand, we have a random outburst by some guy named Clement — who, I’m guessing, was too cheap to hire an American housekeeper."
"...just some guy who wrote a book."
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/clbouve.htm
Richard
mark46th
02-16-2014, 09:37
Educated in Europe? Harvard Law? I think Bouve was Illuminati.
While the US cleared out the very nasty first wave of the real estate bubble that saw real estate prices rationalized and brought back to reality(until inflationary policies kicked in again)....Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have not seen their real estate markets implode like the US.
While Canada, Australia, and NZ have one significant difference in real estate markets(they all have personal guarantees on mortgages...no "jingle mail"), what they share in common with the US is the desire of affluent/wealthy Chinese to purchase "bolt holes".
This phenomenon has been going on since the lead up to the handover of Hong Kong in 1997.
It was probably Vancouver and Auckland that benefited the most from the Hong Kong exodus.....which planted the seed for the current(and far, far larger) exodus.
I suspect the massive size of the US real estate market is masking the Chinese influx harder to "see" outside of the local areas they tend to cluster in.
If Chinese grey money entering Vancouver, NZ, and Australia was cut off it would have a substantial impact on real estate markets.
China is a genuine and serious threat.
But like the former Soviet Union, it's tempered by the fact that the "wisdom of crowds" is seeing almost exclusively one way traffic movement of wealth and talent or at the very least the hedging of bets.
What's scary is that most of these real estate deals are 100% cash or approaching it.
What's the average equity for a US/Canadian/Aussie/Kiwi homeowner?
I wouldn't have a clue, but guessing 20/30/40/50%?
If a Chinese expat living in US/Canada/Aussie/NZ bought a house with cash, what would they be willing to lose if they needed fast liquidity for some reason?
I wouldn't have a clue, but guessing 20/30/40/50%?
You have 4 suitcases of cash and gold, how many are you willing to hand over for your family's seats in the lifeboat? 1/2/3?
Or:
You have 4 suitcases of cash and gold, how many are you willing to hand over for your family's ability to get themselves and a portion of their wealth out of Nazi, Germ....errrrr....the PRC?
This Chinese grey money is propping some things up........but Chinese grey money is likely to behave a LOT differently than local money when things get silly.
Good news, bad news.