My Firsthand Knowledge about Anchor Babies

By Susan Daniels Jul 05, 2025 @ Susan's Newsletter 

There are two subjects on which I am extremely well versed: Barack Obama’s phony Connecticut Social Security number and anchor babies. I was schooled in both while working as a licensed private investigator, which I have done for more than thirty years.

One of my long-time clients is a company in Taiwan. For four years, I collected, with written permission, the medical records of more than eighty Chinese women who arrived in California to give birth.

Most of these women hired companies in China for $30,000, which arranged for help in getting tourist visas, arranging for living accommodations, and a hospital stay. They were also provided rides to doctors’ appointments. The companies advised them how to dress to disguise their pregnancy because women are not allowed to fly after a certain time, usually seven months.

The advantage for women to give birth in the U.S., whose babies were immediately considered citizens, included all the benefits Americans had, like access to social security and a path for the entire family to emigrate when the child turned eighteen.

A lengthy story in the NBC News explained how it worked.

Once I became fluent in reading doctors’ handwriting, it became easy. All the doctors with whom I came in contact were Chinese, but they, and their staff, were fluent in English and pleasant to work with. I also had to deal with about eight different hospitals in the Los Angeles area.

(I still laugh when I recall one of the doctors had written at the bottom of a page: “So far so good.”)

From the medical records I learned that few women had more than two weekly doctor visits before they gave birth. One woman gave birth the day after her first visit. The doctors charged between $2,500 to $3,500 and were paid in cash.

The doctors’ receptionists would complain to me about the anchor baby scam. They were working hard, while the women came in on tourist visas, gave birth, left a month later, but left with a baby who was entitled to everything they were working for. They resented how the women could afford to shop on Rodeo Drive.

A two-day hospital bill averaged $50,000. The women would sign a poverty pledge and the hospital would charge the women $5,000. The State of California coughed up the rest. I suspect no resident was aware of that. The women then filed with their insurance company to be reimbursed for their payment to the doctor and hospital.

The Chinese tradition was that women were to remain in bed for thirty days after birth, and, as part of the arrangement with the provider company, meals were delivered to them.

At no time were these women under the “jurisdiction” of the United States. They lied on their visas about the reason for coming here, and it violates the requirements of the 14th Amendment because they came as tourists.

My client, employed by various Chinese insurance companies, said the companies were angry because the policies required reimbursement to the women when there were doctors and hospitals in China that the women could have used.

That facet of my work for them came to an abrupt halt. A woman, who misjudged her due date, gave birth on the plane. The flight was diverted to Alaska. The woman was sent home on the next flight, the newborn was kept there, and she received a bill for $33,000 for the costs to the airline. I am unsure, but I suspect she had to pay if she wanted her baby.

The insurance companies rewrote their policies, and the scam was finished, as was my work. But I did learn some things that would interest a sociologist. I saw the passports of all the women. With few exceptions, they were all very attractive. Most were 5’3” and at almost nine months pregnant, weighed about 127 lbs. The only exceptions were a woman who was 5’7” and another who tipped the scale at 208 pounds.

If I recall correctly, there were three sets of twins, one baby born with six fingers on one hand, one stillborn, and a woman whose first child was stillborn but gave birth to a healthy boy. Births were almost equally divided by gender.

Dr. John Eastman in “Birthright Citizenship,” puts up a good argument against anchor babies when he was commenting on Trump v CASA, Inc.:

“In her dissenting opinion, Justice Sotomayor laughably contends that “the Order may even wrench newborns from the arms of parents lawfully in the United States, for it purports to strip citizenship from the children of parents legally present on a temporary basis.” “Those newborns,” she adds, “could face deportation, even as their parents remain lawfully in the country.” Had she bothered to look, she would have realized that the children of lawful, temporary visitors to this country, such as those on student or work visas, hold a “derivative nonimmigrant status” based on the parent’s nonimmigrant status.

And “Such evidence includes statements by the leading congressional sponsors of the 14^th Amendment that the language “subject to the jurisdiction” means “a full and complete jurisdiction” and “not being subject to some foreign power.” In other words, it is not enough that a person is subject to the kind of partial jurisdiction that requires compliance with the laws; he must also be free from the jurisdiction of any other nation.

“In addition, there were the actions of the secretary (sic) of State in the decades following adoption of the 14^th Amendment, denying citizenship to children born on U.S. soil to parents who were merely temporarily visiting the United States and therefore owed allegiance to a foreign power.”

DEI Justice Sotomayor, not known for her intellect, cherry-picked what was included in her dissenting opinion. It brings up an interesting question. Since both Sotomayor and DEI Elena Kagan are barren, whose children are they concerned about, since they have none of their own? Could it possibly be future Democrat voters?

The only time I was irritated by the work was because of the useless FBI. There was a story in the newspaper about their raid on some of the apartments where these women were staying. I called the Los Angeles office and told the agent who answered that I could provide the names of doctors treating these women. He told me to go to their website and put it there. I told him I could give him the information right then. He was not interested. They apparently just wanted the photo op but not more work.

Susan Daniels is a private investigator and the author of The Rubbish Hauler’s Wife versus Barack Obama: A True Story which is available on Amazon.com.

Politics like we have never seen.  Recommend Susan’s Newsletter to your friends. Also, there's a video here I can't reproduce.  Go to the original to view it.

 

 

 

The Battle of Birthright: Trump’s Quest to End ‘Birth Tourism’

But open borders advocates fiercely fight back.

By James Fite | Jan 24, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News, Tags:  Articles, Opinion, Politics

Jus Soli – “right of the soil” – is the birthright of US citizens … but what qualifies one for inheritance? In one of many Inauguration Day executive orders, President Donald Trump answered the question: If both your parents are here illegally, then the automatic conference of citizenship defined by the 14th Amendment isn’t for you.

Simple, right? Not exactly. Just three days later, on January 23, a federal judge issued a temporary stay against the order. As it turns out, this issue won’t be resolved so easily. Trump should have expected this immediate challenge – in fact, perhaps he did, and queuing up the legal battle was all part of the plan.

An Issue of Birthright

On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.” The idea of automatic birthright citizenship applying even to the children of illegal aliens stems from the wording of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Section 1 reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and 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 any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Those who believe in birthright citizenship for the offspring of illegal aliens born in the US – often derisively called “anchor babies” – argue that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” means literally everyone, regardless of the circumstances of their birth. “Subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” they argue, means subject to the laws of the land because they happen to be here.

Those who oppose, on the other hand, argue that the part about jurisdiction means those who owe allegiance to and are beholden to only the United States, excluding the children of foreign nationals who are citizens of other countries. The president falls into the latter camp.

“The privilege of United States citizenship is a priceless and profound gift,” Trump declared in the executive order. “The Fourteenth Amendment has always excluded from birthright citizenship persons who were born in the United States but not ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’” he continued. Such persons are later defined as those born in the US when neither parent is a US citizen and the mother is in the country illegally at the time of birth or under a legal but temporary status, like a visa for work, school, or travel.

Trump’s order declared that no US department or agency would issue or recognize citizenship for these people, to take effect February 19. The order didn’t make it anywhere close to that effective date. In just three days, US District Judge John C. Coughenour issued a temporary stay and told a Justice Department lawyer: “This is a blatantly unconstitutional order.”

Defining Inheritance

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” Judge Coughenour said. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one.”

Clear, however, is perhaps not the best word to describe the issue.

A “plain reading” of the 14th Amendment could be used to support either argument, depending on how one defines “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” There are, however, deeper questions – including regarding the validity of the 14th Amendment itself.

After the Civil War, the Reconstruction Acts established Union military rule over the defeated Confederacy, dividing all the rebellious states but Tennessee into five military districts tightly controlled by Union generals. The end of the war meant the Confederate states must remain in the Union, but in order to rejoin and once again govern themselves (more or less), they had to – among other things – ratify the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. The Reconstruction Amendments were effectively ratified at gunpoint, and the 14th, at least, has remained controversial to this day.

Barring another amendment or some extreme (and unlikely) action by the Supreme Court, however, the 14th Amendment will remain in force regardless of the validity of its origin. A much better argument against birthright citizenship for the children of illegals was made by the man who introduced it into the Senate in 1866.

“This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States,” Senator Jacob Howard of Michigan said on the Senate floor. “This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”

Based on the punctuation and word usage, many argue that this only applies to the children of ambassadors or foreign ministers. The best refutation of that interpretation, however, quickly followed in the general discussion at the time. “I presume the honorable Senator from Michigan does not intend by this amendment to include the Indians,” said Senator James Doolittle of Wisconsin.

“Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” Mr. Howard clarified. “They are regarded, and always have been in our legislation and jurisprudence, as being quasi foreign nationals.”

All Native Americans were granted citizenship in 1924 through the Indian Citizenship Act, but the very necessity of its passage almost 60 years later simply demonstrates that Mr. Howard’s interpretation was, in fact, the standard understanding. And it was Mr. Howard’s version of the amendment that the Senate and the House adopted and that went into the Federal Register as the 14th Amendment.

Senator Howard’s argument was that, as a foreign national subject to the rule of another authority before the US government, Indians were excluded from this automatic birthright citizenship. Applying that logic to modern birth tourism would suggest that babies born on American soil to illegal aliens – or, for that matter, even foreign nationals here legally but without being naturalized citizens – are not, in fact, US citizens.

The Battle Continues

Judge Coughenour’s two-week stay, which he says is necessary to give time for both sides to make their arguments, expires before the order was supposed to take effect on February 19. That, perhaps, is the oddest part of the ruling. Otherwise, an immediate challenge and fairly quick ruling in a lower court was far from unexpected. An appeal has already been filed, and this case seems likely to work its way all the way up to the US Supreme Court. One might even be forgiven for assuming the president expected and even planned for it in order to get a ruling from a High Court he believes will decide in his favor.

For Discerning News Hounds

The Supreme Court did historically rule in favor of Trump’s interpretation of birthright citizenship – until it didn’t. In the 1873 Slaughterhouse Cases, both the majority and the dissent agreed that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” excluded the children of citizens or subjects of foreign states, even if born in the US. This was reinforced in the Elk v. Wilkins decision of 1884, which stated that an Indian born on a reservation was not a citizen of the United States.

In 1898, however, the Supreme Court reversed that position in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, establishing birthright citizenship for anyone born in America, regardless of the parents’ citizenship status. Which way today’s High Court will rule, however, is anyone’s guess – and President Trump seems to be betting on himself.

~

Liberty Nation does not endorse candidates, campaigns, or legislation, and this presentation is no endorsement.

Read More From James Fite Editor-at-Large

DEVELOPING: Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order

Stay tuned for more as this story develops. 

By Liberty Nation Authors Jan 23, 2025 @ Liberty Nation News

A federal judge temporarily blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants. On Thursday, January 23, US District Judge John C. Coughenour ruled in a case brought by four states – Washington, Arizona, Illinois, and Oregon – that argued the 14th Amendment and existing US Supreme Court case law ensure birthright citizenship.

The EO was signed on Inauguration Day and was slated to take effect on February 19. While Trump and many others interpret it as not applying to the children of illegal immigrants because they don’t fall under the jurisdiction of the US government, the lawsuit argues that it does – and that American courts have interpreted it this way for nearly century.

• The Misuse of the 14th Amendment, By Susan Daniels Jan 22, 2025 -  “The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was intended to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people, protect the civil rights of all citizens, and guarantee equal protection under the law. The amendment was ratified in 1868, two years after the Civil War.” I don’t think the Founding Fathers imagined people would come here to take advantage of our government systems by giving birth and going back home..........
• Day 3, Trump Golden Age: ...and just like that, illegal border crossings are down to 420 in a day - January 23, 2025 by Monica Showalter -  Three days into President Trump's term of office and the Border Patrol is reporting they've got ... 420 illegal border crossings to deal with across the 2,000-mile border, not 12,000..........Now there are reports of caravans turning around. Some migrants are telling the press they're planning to go home.  The sob stories are flowing -- and as Todd Bensmann notes, none are verified through actual reporting......
• Pregnant Migrants Seek C-Sections Before Trump’s Birthright Citizenship Deadline - By Alana Mastrangelo 23 Jan 2025 -  President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birth citizenship for children of migrants has reportedly prompted a rush for C-section births by pregnant illegal migrants and visa workers. Dr. S D Rama, who operates a maternity clinic in the United States, told Times of India that a significant increase in pre-term delivery requests has been seen following President Trump’s Monday executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of illegal migrants. Indian women in their eighth or ninth month of pregnancy are now scrambling to schedule C-sections before the February 20, when President Trump’s order is set to go into effect......
• Imaginary birthright - January 24, 2025 by Bill Ponton - President Trump’s decision to end birthright citizenship is challenged in court, but the whole argument is ludicrous........  The most laughable element of Bonta’s argument is his contention that the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted to enable what we see today.  I contend that if the framers were alive today, they would be scratching their heads in bewilderment about our present predicament. They might even call up the Union army thinking that Mexico was trying to reconquer its lost territories.
•  Tom Homan Is Right: Babies of Criminally-Present Aliens Are Not Citizens -Paul Dowling - The lawmakers who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment never dreamed of the lengths to which future Democrats would go to twist the authorial intent of the amendment into a wrongheaded policy harmful to Americans. .............So, here is what the Constitution says about birthright citizenship: “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.” The wording makes it clear that persons born in the U.S., but subject to the jurisdiction of another country, are not American citizens. In other words, babies born to foreign nationals who are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico are Mexican citizens, because they, like their parents, are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico -- not the United States.

The Misuse of the 14th Amendment

By Susan Daniels Jan 22, 2025 @ Susan's Newsletter

 I have first-hand knowledge based on work I did for one of my clients.

I have been a state-licensed private investigator for more than thirty years. One of my long-term clients is in Taiwan. I was hired years ago to collect the medical records of women flying into California to give birth. That was a violation of the terms of their medical insurance but the women claimed they were here as tourists when they went into labor.

Most came about three weeks before they were due to give birth. Few, if any airlines, allow women to fly after they are seven months pregnant. Their trips were arranged by companies in China who would advise them how to dress so they did not look as pregnant as they were, arranged their flights, and where they would stay. It was also arranged for vans to pick them up for doctor appointments, and food delivery for the month they would remain here after delivery. I was told the companies making all the arrangements were paid $30,000.

Over the years I collected the records using a signed authorization. There were six Chinese obstetricians who the women used and several different hospitals in the Los Angeles area.

The doctor visits were once a week and most of the women only had two or three visits. One woman gave birth the day after she had her first visit. The doctors’ fees, regardless of the number of visits, averaged $2,500 and were paid in cash.

The hospital bills for a two-day stay was about $48,000. The women would sign a pledge of poverty and pay about $5,000. The state of California absorbed the rest of the fee. When they returned to China, their insurance companies reimbursed them for their doctor and hospital expenses.

Their “anchor babies” were immediately considered U.S. citizens and entitled to all rights, including social security. At eighteen, they can return and bring their families with them.

I made friends with Chinese women who worked in the doctor’s offices. They did not like the cheating on the hospital bills, because they knew they were the ones paying the bills with their taxes, and complained the women were always going shopping on Rodeo Drive, known for its high-end stores.

I handled more than eighty cases, but the insurance companies changed their policies when a woman underestimated her due date and gave birth on a plane that was diverted to Alaska. The woman was put on a plane back to China the following day, and the baby stayed there. The woman was then sent a bill for $33,000 for the cost of diverting the flight. I assume she went back for her child after she paid that bill.

“The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was intended to grant citizenship to formerly enslaved people, protect the civil rights of all citizens, and guarantee equal protection under the law. The amendment was ratified in 1868, two years after the Civil War.”

I don’t think the Founding Fathers imagined people would come here to take advantage of our government systems by giving birth and going back home.

Arguments against what President Trump is suggesting cherry-pick the verbiage they want from the original intent.

Susan Daniels is a private investigator and the author of The Rubbish Hauler’s Wife versus Barack Obama: A True Story which is available on Amazon.com.

Politics like we have never seen.  Recommend Susan’s Newsletter to your friends.

 

As Many as 1 in 3 Afghan Refugee Women at U.S. Base are Pregnant

Daniel Greenfield December 29, 2021 

When Biden's Afghanistan retreat first brought tens of thousands of Afghans to the United States without any visas or vetting, officials at Fort McCoy warned about numerous incidents of Afghan child brides. Democrats and senior military officials have denied these allegations, but shocking new statistics out of Fort McCoy raise new questions of just how pervasive this is.

When thousands of Afghans first arrived at the military base in rural Wisconsin, local residents in Sparta, the “Bicycling Capital of America”, a small city of less than 10,000, began warning that the Afghans being housed at Fort McCoy were putting a significant strain on their infrastructure and their medical services. I was told that there were as many as 800 pregnant refugees at the base. The number seemed wildly implausible, but now the official number is out.

According to military officials, there have been 500 pregnant Afghans at Fort McCoy and, according to a local news report, “the numbers keep growing”.

“I am so happy that my son was born as a US citizen,” one Afghan evacuee declared.

Considering that there were only 12,600 Afghans on the base, down to about 7,000 now, these numbers are staggering. According to the Pentagon, only 22% of Afghan evacuees across all the bases are adult women. Around half of the evacuees are children. Assuming that these numbers hold true for Fort McCoy, that would mean that it housed only 2,772 adult women.

As the number of Afghan evacuees fell to around 7,000, most recently, the number of adult women would have averaged around 1,500. Even as its highest population mark, that would mean that 1 in 5 Afghan women were pregnant, while as its current number it would be 1 in 3.

All of that within a five month period.

In all of Wisconsin, a state of nearly 6 million people, there were only 60,615 births last year. 1.6% of the adult women in the state had a baby in one year, but between 18% to 33% of the Afghan women at Fort McCoy were pregnant during their time there.

These staggering numbers reveal the massive speed with which Islamic colonization takes place, fueled by birth rates and then religious violence, but even with the high birth rates within Islam in general and in Afghanistan in particular, the Fort McCoy numbers are still too high.

At 4.32 children per woman (as opposed to the American birth rate of 1.70), the Afghan birth rate is high, but 1 in 5 Afghan women (let alone 1 in 3) are still not pregnant at any given time. Some of the Afghan female refugees must be older which narrows down the population further. The only way to account for such a high pregnancy rate is by factoring in the underage girls.

Shortly before September, Senator Tammy Baldwin, Rep. Mark Pocan and other Democrats toured Fort McCoy and falsely claimed that the evacuees were being reliably vetted and screened.

"There are no cases in Fort McCoy right now with a child, 15 or under, who is married," Senator Baldwin insisted. The careful wording by the former lawyer leaves plenty of room for loopholes. It does not address the question of whether there are any pregnant children, 15 or under. And it doesn’t even touch on how many 16 and 17-year-olds are pregnant. And, since many of the Afghan evacuees had no documentation, there’s no way to know if any of those 16-year-olds are actually 15, 14, or even 13, despite how old the men trafficking them claim that they are.

Why else did the State Department demand "urgent guidance" after “intake staff at Fort McCoy reported multiple cases of minor females who presented as ‘married’ to adult Afghan men, as well as polygamous families?” Afghanistan has a 57% child marriage rate. Senator Baldwin and the Democrats expect us to believe that what the media is now describing as the “baby boom” is entirely due to 500 women, out of 1,500 to 2,700, all somehow being pregnant at Fort McCoy.

The only way to make sense of these numbers is to include many of the underage girls.

But why are so many Afghan women and girls at Fort McCoy pregnant? Obviously having a baby on American soil solidifies their legal status and provides them with assorted benefits. Demographic colonization of infidel nations through reproduction is also considered a form of Jihad. But for the men who bought and sold young girls for the trip, impregnating them is also a way to control them. It will be a lot harder for those girls to get away once they have a baby.

State Department personnel asked for guidance and the Biden administration began a coverup.

The media reporting on the “baby boom” at Fort McCoy state that the “base is partnering with local hospitals for deliveries”. Locals have long complained about the enormous demands that the Afghans at Fort McCoy are placing on local hospitals and medical personnel. For the first time we’re getting a small sense of just how enormous that demand really is.

In all of Monroe County, there were only 534 births in 2017. The Afghan migrants are set to equal all of the American births in a county with a population of three-quarters of a million.

When 12,500 Afghans can outnumber 741,770 Americans, what will happen when over 100,000 Afghans are brought to America? After Biden brought 53,000 Afghans to America, another 60,000 are waiting on visas in Afghanistan. That’s 113,000 Afghans and it’s just the beginning.

At a time when hospitals are already under strain and there are shortages of medical personnel, Biden’s decision to dump over 12,000 Afghans into rural Wisconsin has proven to be catastrophic. Gundersen Health Systems, one of whose hospitals has been used to deliver Afghan babies, has claimed that it's near capacity with COVID patients. Could Americans lose their lives because of shortages created by the Afghan strain on our medical system?

Either way, the Afghan influx has hit the region hard and as their wave of demographic change transforms the country, the next phase of the war in Afghanistan will take place in America..

A few days after September 11, Rep. Ilhan Omar signed a letter to the Secretary of Defense in response to complaints from the evacuees, claiming that the Afghans at Fort McCoy were suffering "mistreatment" and had been spoken to in a "rude condescending manner".

The next Omar, nurturing a grievance against America, is already at Fort McCoy. If the flood of Afghan migrants doesn’t stop, within another decade or two, she’ll be sitting in Congress.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. 

Thank you for reading.

Tags: Afghanistan, feminism, immigration, recent

Share This:

Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest Linkedin

About Daniel Greenfield
Daniel Greenfield is a journalist investigating Islamic terrorism and the Left. He is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center