Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
On the one hand, this is objectively grotesque and there should be laws that better prohibit this kind of misuse of surrogacy.
On the other hand, I don't trust that the WSJ didn't develop this story with top-down ulterior motives - namely to shift public (and possibly actual Justices') attitude in favor of Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship ahead of the Supreme Court case.
This is less about nationality and citizenship as it is about billionaires skirting laws and exploiting the poor. In this case, it's just foreign billionaires exploiting American poor.
Elon Musk: Doesn't everyone do that?
Elon's only had 14. Man is clearly slacking.
"Whatever you do, there's a Chinese person somewhere that does it 10x better"
Ok let's end billionaires
Oh, a billionaire says he has over 100 children and it becomes a whole anti-immigrant panic article in the WSJ.
It's paywalled so I can't know for sure, but I bet they don't even verify the claim. I bet they ran with this because they're onboard with the ending of birthright citizenship.
Of course, what rich person hasn’t had the idea of stealing Genghis Khan’s behavior that left around 8% of modern day China his ancestor.
His decendents?
Oh look, rich people being absolute pieces of shit...yet again. On an unrelated note, Free Luigi.
Given current political distractions being thrown about to make us lose sight of the Epstein Files, I presume the timing and flavor of this article is the WSJ working to support ending birthright citizenship in the US in aid of the racist fucks in charge of the US government.
They have to come up with a convincing rationalization for those who won't just blindly respond out of their own natural primitive xenophobic impulses.
"Look, some bad people are exploiting our system, so we should ignore an entire amendment rather than address this particular issue with legislation that doesn't also hurt millions of others."
“This bathwater is dirty, why do you insist to keep bringing up babies!”
That was my first thought as well.
What the fuck? Well no worries Trump about to get his way and outlaw that in America. But goddamn what's the end game here?
Billionaires
I think you missed this part. Trump's more likely to try to make it illegal to criticize them
Can’t they simply buy citizenship for $1 million now too?
The endgame is to build a dynasty. With a 100 kids and billions of dollars he can basically play Queen Victoria and put his kids in positions of power. He can give his kids the best education at the most prestigious schools where they meet the kids of the other elites. He can basically build a massive old boys network within his own family. In the future some of his kids will be leaders of industry, lobbyists and even politicians.
And with so many kids and money good chance one becomes a US senator or even the president
The WSJ may sometimes be less evil than Murdoch's other companies but at the end of the day this is a Murdoch publication and it must not be trusted too much. The ultimate purpose of the article is to build right-wing outrage. The other comments already do a great job explaining how it's really the billionaires who we need to rein in.
He said he hoped to have 20 or so U.S.-born children through surrogacy—boys, because they’re superior to girls—to one day take over his business.
Several of his kids were being raised by nannies in nearby Irvine as they awaited paperwork to travel to China. He hadn’t yet met them, he told the judge, because work had been busy.
Goes on to describe many such cases.
China currently has a 3 child max policy, at which point I don't see the need for a limit. This is something else though.
Hey I was about to post about Irvine. The guy that was getting downvoted is kind of right about "farm house", but not really. It's more of a tourism kind of things, they come when they are closing to delivery.
Live close to Irvine. It's kind of like the rumor that goes around neighboring cities.
Ok, but have they considered having Canadian babies? American baby values have to be tanking right now.
Right now America is probably the best country in the whole world if you're a billionaire, whole fucking place is being sold around us...
You think some asshole who made billions of dollars on VIDEO GAMES would be more chill, but they're all assholes I guess.
Why is it so easy for billionaires to have children while the working class struggles?
Children are a fixed cost, and all fixed costs become insignificant exponentially fast as you become super rich.
$200,000 to raise a child until age 18 is four years' wages if you make $50,000 a year, and after living expenses, unsustainably unaffordable.
Elon Musk makes $24 million an hour. He can afford 120 more children through age 18 every hour.
Even with surrogacy costs added, it's next to nothing to billionaires, just more assets and a different kind of wealth they can create.
Interesting.
I'm glad we keep saying "they're a business and they need to make money" so they can have a much easier time raising a family than any of us.
Poor people have children all the time. In my daughter's class at school 2 of her friends are from families with 7 siblings. And we live pretty regional. I honestly don't know how they make ends meet.
But it's not stopping people from having kids.
Sounds like a big pile o bullshit.
The US is a failed state at this point. Ain't no one queuing up to get in.
Dozens!
If anything could convince libs of supporting the end of birthright, it's the threat of hundreds of chinese babies being born to US citizenship.
Its probably a lot more effective at convincing folks that we shouldn't have billionaires
It's already a bi-partisan consensus that China shouldn't have billionaires
Fortunately for them, they can't do anything about the billionaire problem - so instead they'll focus on the xenophobia
Race has nothing to do with this. Take "Chinese" out and replace it with literally anything else. They're still billionaires exploiting loopholes.
Birthright isnt a loophole.
If you want to abolish billionaires, you dont need to deal in xenophobic scaremongering to do it; but if you want to abolish birthright, you gotta play all the notes of xenophobia. The billionaire flair is just the lib-spin.
The WSJ publishing this story should tell you everything you need to know about its intent
Edit: otherwise they would be writing about how billionaires are exploiting inheritance