Hey OG, I am still waiting for you to explain to me how this Anchor Baby thing actually works. I (well my wife) have a baby due in 3 weeks, I am currently in Mexico. So, we sneak over the border, my wife drops the sprog and then what?
I am seriously interested in a real answer to the question.
How can my wife and I benefit from my Daughter being born in the US instead of Mexico (this is all hypothetical of course, my daughter will automatically have British Nationality as I have British Nationality therefore my daughter (and my wife and I) have the right to enter the US freely on the Visa Waiver program)[/quote]
You don’t see how it would benefit an illegal immigrant to have an anchor baby or are you being disingenuous?
A baby born here is an automatic citizen and if warranted, will receive benefits. Most illegal aliens are in financial difficulty or demonstrate financial difficulty and will be eligible for benefits. As it is not required to prove citizenship to receive these benefits, illegal aliens through their anchor babies relieve lots of benefits.
It does not seem to be the policy of the US to deport the mothers of anchor babies.
If you are wondering about the 21yr old thing, I just was in the office of an immigration attorney who shares space with the attorney that I work for part time. The illegal immigrants are also practicing a new way of having anchor babies called “drop and leave.” They leave and return to get around having to wait 10yrs to apply for citizenship if caught in the US illegally.
But she also said it isn’t the policy of the US to separate families and that is mostly due to bad publicity that would generate. She also said it is similar to a district attorney choosing which cases to prosecute.
[b]u[/u][/b] [quote]Still, Krikorian said, “Now that they have kids, even though it doesn’t create any automatic legal right to stay here, it does create a political pressure, or political difficulty, in deporting people.”[/quote]
I don’t believe that you don’t see how anchor babies soak up resources and offer an “anchor” to the family here in the U.S.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
14th amendment was not written to simply free blacks. if it was, it would have said african slaves are now citizens.
it was written so that dredd scott and black codes could be overruled, both are centered around property more than race (if there more were asians it would have been yellow codes). and that due process, equal protections, and the bill of rights would always supersede state law. to protect from state level intrusion of the bill of rights.
lots could be said about the parallel of dredd scott and businesses importing illegal labor.
i would say trying to reword this amendment (especially with the current batch of politicians and potentials in November) could cause way more damage and loop holes than any conjured up ideas of anchor babies.
we need to provide equal protection of law to illegals so that we can put them into our justice system and deport them.[/quote]
I think the key phrase of the 14th is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, . . . "
Isn’t that what a lot of what the speculation is about, whether illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the United States. Does jurisdiction apply to anyone entering the nation whether legally or illegally.
Regarding the treatment of illegal aliens I do want them to have reasonable care and protection, but then I want them fined, entered into the system as a criminal, and then deported.[/quote]
Hey OG, I am still waiting for you to explain to me how this Anchor Baby thing actually works. I (well my wife) have a baby due in 3 weeks, I am currently in Mexico. So, we sneak over the border, my wife drops the sprog and then what?
I am seriously interested in a real answer to the question.
How can my wife and I benefit from my Daughter being born in the US instead of Mexico (this is all hypothetical of course, my daughter will automatically have British Nationality as I have British Nationality therefore my daughter (and my wife and I) have the right to enter the US freely on the Visa Waiver program)[/quote]
Sneak your wife over and have her give birth in one of the hospitals near the border. When you arrive at the hospital, make sure you wear all sorts of posh attire, yet claim you are indigent. Once there, your child will automatically get US citizenship, a free childbirth (ya know, just like your precious NHS, where according to Michael Moore there are no cash registers.)
Then you get welfare checks for your baby, I know here in Los Angeles you get $650 per month per child. So if you are in a bind financially, just pop out another kid. Oh yes before I forget, if you stay in California (the only state that does not follow welfare laws that the rest of the US does) you can get those welfare checks until your children are 18 yrs old.
When your child becomes of age, you can send them to public school, where they also get a free lunch, courtesy of taxpayers. So imagine that, you get money from the state, you get free child care, and if you need health care, just pop into the closest emergency room all for free.
Perhaps you now understand why we have the term “jackpot baby.” You truly do hit the jackpot as an illegal alien. Your child can also sponsor you and your wife once they reach 21 for US citizenship, so please feel free to continue the chain migration.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
14th amendment was not written to simply free blacks. if it was, it would have said african slaves are now citizens.
it was written so that dredd scott and black codes could be overruled, both are centered around property more than race (if there more were asians it would have been yellow codes). and that due process, equal protections, and the bill of rights would always supersede state law. to protect from state level intrusion of the bill of rights.
lots could be said about the parallel of dredd scott and businesses importing illegal labor.
i would say trying to reword this amendment (especially with the current batch of politicians and potentials in November) could cause way more damage and loop holes than any conjured up ideas of anchor babies.
we need to provide equal protection of law to illegals so that we can put them into our justice system and deport them.[/quote]
I think the key phrase of the 14th is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, . . . "
Isn’t that what a lot of what the speculation is about, whether illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the United States. Does jurisdiction apply to anyone entering the nation whether legally or illegally.
Regarding the treatment of illegal aliens I do want them to have reasonable care and protection, but then I want them fined, entered into the system as a criminal, and then deported.[/quote]
Hey OG, I am still waiting for you to explain to me how this Anchor Baby thing actually works. I (well my wife) have a baby due in 3 weeks, I am currently in Mexico. So, we sneak over the border, my wife drops the sprog and then what?
I am seriously interested in a real answer to the question.
How can my wife and I benefit from my Daughter being born in the US instead of Mexico (this is all hypothetical of course, my daughter will automatically have British Nationality as I have British Nationality therefore my daughter (and my wife and I) have the right to enter the US freely on the Visa Waiver program)[/quote]
Sneak your wife over and have her give birth in one of the hospitals near the border. When you arrive at the hospital, make sure you wear all sorts of posh attire, yet claim you are indigent. Once there, your child will automatically get US citizenship, a free childbirth (ya know, just like your precious NHS, where according to Michael Moore there are no cash registers.)
Then you get welfare checks for your baby, I know here in Los Angeles you get $650 per month per child. So if you are in a bind financially, just pop out another kid. Oh yes before I forget, if you stay in California (the only state that does not follow welfare laws that the rest of the US does) you can get those welfare checks until your children are 18 yrs old.
When your child becomes of age, you can send them to public school, where they also get a free lunch, courtesy of taxpayers. So imagine that, you get money from the state, you get free child care, and if you need health care, just pop into the closest emergency room all for free.
Perhaps you now understand why we have the term “jackpot baby.” You truly do hit the jackpot as an illegal alien. Your child can also sponsor you and your wife once they reach 21 for US citizenship, so please feel free to continue the chain migration. [/quote]
The problem is not the babies – it’s the laws. Change the laws.
Who would care about “citizenship” in a system where there were no such thing as a “free ride”?
Hey OG, I am still waiting for you to explain to me how this Anchor Baby thing actually works. I (well my wife) have a baby due in 3 weeks, I am currently in Mexico. So, we sneak over the border, my wife drops the sprog and then what?
I am seriously interested in a real answer to the question.
How can my wife and I benefit from my Daughter being born in the US instead of Mexico (this is all hypothetical of course, my daughter will automatically have British Nationality as I have British Nationality therefore my daughter (and my wife and I) have the right to enter the US freely on the Visa Waiver program)[/quote]
You don’t see how it would benefit an illegal immigrant to have an anchor baby or are you being disingenuous?
A baby born here is an automatic citizen and if warranted, will receive benefits. Most illegal aliens are in financial difficulty or demonstrate financial difficulty and will be eligible for benefits. As it is not required to prove citizenship to receive these benefits, illegal aliens through their anchor babies relieve lots of benefits.
It does not seem to be the policy of the US to deport the mothers of anchor babies.
If you are wondering about the 21yr old thing, I just was in the office of an immigration attorney who shares space with the attorney that I work for part time. The illegal immigrants are also practicing a new way of having anchor babies called “drop and leave.” They leave and return to get around having to wait 10yrs to apply for citizenship if caught in the US illegally.
But she also said it isn’t the policy of the US to separate families and that is mostly due to bad publicity that would generate. She also said it is similar to a district attorney choosing which cases to prosecute.
[b]u[/u][/b] [quote]Still, Krikorian said, “Now that they have kids, even though it doesn’t create any automatic legal right to stay here, it does create a political pressure, or political difficulty, in deporting people.”[/quote]
I don’t believe that you don’t see how anchor babies soak up resources and offer an “anchor” to the family here in the U.S.
[/quote]
The benefits thing makes sense though that wouldn’t work if they were doing what you suggest of having the baby then leaving. Though that isn’t what is happening according to that you posted? It clearly states:
Actually, did you read either piece? They do deport the parents of children born in the US, thousands per year are deported. What they do however is focus on those that engage in illegal activities as a priority. Now you could argue that they should be deporting more people but that has nothing to do with so called anchor babies.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
14th amendment was not written to simply free blacks. if it was, it would have said african slaves are now citizens.
it was written so that dredd scott and black codes could be overruled, both are centered around property more than race (if there more were asians it would have been yellow codes). and that due process, equal protections, and the bill of rights would always supersede state law. to protect from state level intrusion of the bill of rights.
lots could be said about the parallel of dredd scott and businesses importing illegal labor.
i would say trying to reword this amendment (especially with the current batch of politicians and potentials in November) could cause way more damage and loop holes than any conjured up ideas of anchor babies.
we need to provide equal protection of law to illegals so that we can put them into our justice system and deport them.[/quote]
I think the key phrase of the 14th is "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, . . . "
Isn’t that what a lot of what the speculation is about, whether illegal aliens are under the jurisdiction of the United States. Does jurisdiction apply to anyone entering the nation whether legally or illegally.
Regarding the treatment of illegal aliens I do want them to have reasonable care and protection, but then I want them fined, entered into the system as a criminal, and then deported.[/quote]
Hey OG, I am still waiting for you to explain to me how this Anchor Baby thing actually works. I (well my wife) have a baby due in 3 weeks, I am currently in Mexico. So, we sneak over the border, my wife drops the sprog and then what?
I am seriously interested in a real answer to the question.
How can my wife and I benefit from my Daughter being born in the US instead of Mexico (this is all hypothetical of course, my daughter will automatically have British Nationality as I have British Nationality therefore my daughter (and my wife and I) have the right to enter the US freely on the Visa Waiver program)[/quote]
Sneak your wife over and have her give birth in one of the hospitals near the border. When you arrive at the hospital, make sure you wear all sorts of posh attire, yet claim you are indigent. Once there, your child will automatically get US citizenship, a free childbirth (ya know, just like your precious NHS, where according to Michael Moore there are no cash registers.)
Then you get welfare checks for your baby, I know here in Los Angeles you get $650 per month per child. So if you are in a bind financially, just pop out another kid. Oh yes before I forget, if you stay in California (the only state that does not follow welfare laws that the rest of the US does) you can get those welfare checks until your children are 18 yrs old.
When your child becomes of age, you can send them to public school, where they also get a free lunch, courtesy of taxpayers. So imagine that, you get money from the state, you get free child care, and if you need health care, just pop into the closest emergency room all for free.
Perhaps you now understand why we have the term “jackpot baby.” You truly do hit the jackpot as an illegal alien. Your child can also sponsor you and your wife once they reach 21 for US citizenship, so please feel free to continue the chain migration. [/quote]
Could you back up that claim of $650 a month? I can’t seem to find any reference anywhere to it
Hey OG, I am still waiting for you to explain to me how this Anchor Baby thing actually works. I (well my wife) have a baby due in 3 weeks, I am currently in Mexico. So, we sneak over the border, my wife drops the sprog and then what?
I am seriously interested in a real answer to the question.
How can my wife and I benefit from my Daughter being born in the US instead of Mexico (this is all hypothetical of course, my daughter will automatically have British Nationality as I have British Nationality therefore my daughter (and my wife and I) have the right to enter the US freely on the Visa Waiver program)[/quote]
You don’t see how it would benefit an illegal immigrant to have an anchor baby or are you being disingenuous?
A baby born here is an automatic citizen and if warranted, will receive benefits. Most illegal aliens are in financial difficulty or demonstrate financial difficulty and will be eligible for benefits. As it is not required to prove citizenship to receive these benefits, illegal aliens through their anchor babies relieve lots of benefits.
It does not seem to be the policy of the US to deport the mothers of anchor babies.
If you are wondering about the 21yr old thing, I just was in the office of an immigration attorney who shares space with the attorney that I work for part time. The illegal immigrants are also practicing a new way of having anchor babies called “drop and leave.” They leave and return to get around having to wait 10yrs to apply for citizenship if caught in the US illegally.
But she also said it isn’t the policy of the US to separate families and that is mostly due to bad publicity that would generate. She also said it is similar to a district attorney choosing which cases to prosecute.
[b]u[/u][/b] [quote]Still, Krikorian said, “Now that they have kids, even though it doesn’t create any automatic legal right to stay here, it does create a political pressure, or political difficulty, in deporting people.”[/quote]
I don’t believe that you don’t see how anchor babies soak up resources and offer an “anchor” to the family here in the U.S.
[/quote]
The benefits thing makes sense though that wouldn’t work if they were doing what you suggest of having the baby then leaving. Though that isn’t what is happening according to that you posted? It clearly states:
Actually, did you read either piece? They do deport the parents of children born in the US, thousands per year are deported. What they do however is focus on those that engage in illegal activities as a priority. Now you could argue that they should be deporting more people but that has nothing to do with so called anchor babies.[/quote]
I did read the articles. I also read the part where the Center you quoted stated.:
and it didn’t say in that article that they deport thousands a year. They did say:
[quote]Still, Krikorian said, “Now that they have kids, even though it doesn’t create any automatic legal right to stay here, it does create a political pressure, or political difficulty, in deporting people.”
Because children of illegal immigrants qualify for public programs, they are a major source of the cost of illegal immigration, Krikorian said.[/quote]
I don’t know how long the “drop and carry” practice has been noticed. I did post that it was new.
The attorney also said that families from Mexico were selling their babies to families in the US so they would qualify for those benefits. The family in Mexico would drop and carry their baby, making it a citizen, then they would receive remuneration for the child as the host family would rake in the benefits.
But, whatever the case, I’ve proven my point.
As LIFT stated, the problem I have is with the current disposition of the laws regarding anchor babies.
If you are wondering I would deport the anchor babies and their entire family because they shouldn’t be separated from their parents but their parents are criminals that should be deported.
And if they received any public benefits those criminals should have to pay back the citizens of the United States.
Hey OG, I am still waiting for you to explain to me how this Anchor Baby thing actually works. I (well my wife) have a baby due in 3 weeks, I am currently in Mexico. So, we sneak over the border, my wife drops the sprog and then what?
I am seriously interested in a real answer to the question.
How can my wife and I benefit from my Daughter being born in the US instead of Mexico (this is all hypothetical of course, my daughter will automatically have British Nationality as I have British Nationality therefore my daughter (and my wife and I) have the right to enter the US freely on the Visa Waiver program)[/quote]
You don’t see how it would benefit an illegal immigrant to have an anchor baby or are you being disingenuous?
A baby born here is an automatic citizen and if warranted, will receive benefits. Most illegal aliens are in financial difficulty or demonstrate financial difficulty and will be eligible for benefits. As it is not required to prove citizenship to receive these benefits, illegal aliens through their anchor babies relieve lots of benefits.
It does not seem to be the policy of the US to deport the mothers of anchor babies.
If you are wondering about the 21yr old thing, I just was in the office of an immigration attorney who shares space with the attorney that I work for part time. The illegal immigrants are also practicing a new way of having anchor babies called “drop and leave.” They leave and return to get around having to wait 10yrs to apply for citizenship if caught in the US illegally.
But she also said it isn’t the policy of the US to separate families and that is mostly due to bad publicity that would generate. She also said it is similar to a district attorney choosing which cases to prosecute.
[b]u[/u][/b] [quote]Still, Krikorian said, “Now that they have kids, even though it doesn’t create any automatic legal right to stay here, it does create a political pressure, or political difficulty, in deporting people.”[/quote]
I don’t believe that you don’t see how anchor babies soak up resources and offer an “anchor” to the family here in the U.S.
[/quote]
The benefits thing makes sense though that wouldn’t work if they were doing what you suggest of having the baby then leaving. Though that isn’t what is happening according to that you posted? It clearly states:
Actually, did you read either piece? They do deport the parents of children born in the US, thousands per year are deported. What they do however is focus on those that engage in illegal activities as a priority. Now you could argue that they should be deporting more people but that has nothing to do with so called anchor babies.[/quote]
I did read the articles. I also read the part where the Center you quoted stated.:
and it didn’t say in that article that they deport thousands a year. They did say:
[quote]Still, Krikorian said, “Now that they have kids, even though it doesn’t create any automatic legal right to stay here, it does create a political pressure, or political difficulty, in deporting people.”
Because children of illegal immigrants qualify for public programs, they are a major source of the cost of illegal immigration, Krikorian said.[/quote]
I don’t know how long the “drop and carry” practice has been noticed. I did post that it was new.
The attorney also said that families from Mexico were selling their babies to families in the US so they would qualify for those benefits. The family in Mexico would drop and carry their baby, making it a citizen, then they would receive remuneration for the child as the host family would rake in the benefits.
But, whatever the case, I’ve proven my point.
As LIFT stated, the problem I have is with the current disposition of the laws regarding anchor babies.
If you are wondering I would deport the anchor babies and their entire family because they shouldn’t be separated from their parents but their parents are criminals that should be deported.
And if they received any public benefits those criminals should have to pay back the citizens of the United States.
[/quote]
I agree that the people should be deported if they are there illegally. However you have not at all proved your point, you have posted an article that states that drop and carry isn’t actually a problem.
There is a cap on the number of cases of deportation that can be blocked due to having a citizen child per year. That cap is 4,000. The cap has not been reached in the last few years, therefore there are not a large number of people even trying to avoid deportation each year based on a so called anchor baby.
Hey OG, I am still waiting for you to explain to me how this Anchor Baby thing actually works. I (well my wife) have a baby due in 3 weeks, I am currently in Mexico. So, we sneak over the border, my wife drops the sprog and then what?
I am seriously interested in a real answer to the question.
How can my wife and I benefit from my Daughter being born in the US instead of Mexico (this is all hypothetical of course, my daughter will automatically have British Nationality as I have British Nationality therefore my daughter (and my wife and I) have the right to enter the US freely on the Visa Waiver program)[/quote]
You don’t see how it would benefit an illegal immigrant to have an anchor baby or are you being disingenuous?
A baby born here is an automatic citizen and if warranted, will receive benefits. Most illegal aliens are in financial difficulty or demonstrate financial difficulty and will be eligible for benefits. As it is not required to prove citizenship to receive these benefits, illegal aliens through their anchor babies relieve lots of benefits.
It does not seem to be the policy of the US to deport the mothers of anchor babies.
If you are wondering about the 21yr old thing, I just was in the office of an immigration attorney who shares space with the attorney that I work for part time. The illegal immigrants are also practicing a new way of having anchor babies called “drop and leave.” They leave and return to get around having to wait 10yrs to apply for citizenship if caught in the US illegally.
But she also said it isn’t the policy of the US to separate families and that is mostly due to bad publicity that would generate. She also said it is similar to a district attorney choosing which cases to prosecute.
[b]u[/u][/b] [quote]Still, Krikorian said, “Now that they have kids, even though it doesn’t create any automatic legal right to stay here, it does create a political pressure, or political difficulty, in deporting people.”[/quote]
I don’t believe that you don’t see how anchor babies soak up resources and offer an “anchor” to the family here in the U.S.
[/quote]
The benefits thing makes sense though that wouldn’t work if they were doing what you suggest of having the baby then leaving. Though that isn’t what is happening according to that you posted? It clearly states:
Actually, did you read either piece? They do deport the parents of children born in the US, thousands per year are deported. What they do however is focus on those that engage in illegal activities as a priority. Now you could argue that they should be deporting more people but that has nothing to do with so called anchor babies.[/quote]
I did read the articles. I also read the part where the Center you quoted stated.:
and it didn’t say in that article that they deport thousands a year. They did say:
[quote]Still, Krikorian said, “Now that they have kids, even though it doesn’t create any automatic legal right to stay here, it does create a political pressure, or political difficulty, in deporting people.”
Because children of illegal immigrants qualify for public programs, they are a major source of the cost of illegal immigration, Krikorian said.[/quote]
I don’t know how long the “drop and carry” practice has been noticed. I did post that it was new.
The attorney also said that families from Mexico were selling their babies to families in the US so they would qualify for those benefits. The family in Mexico would drop and carry their baby, making it a citizen, then they would receive remuneration for the child as the host family would rake in the benefits.
But, whatever the case, I’ve proven my point.
As LIFT stated, the problem I have is with the current disposition of the laws regarding anchor babies.
If you are wondering I would deport the anchor babies and their entire family because they shouldn’t be separated from their parents but their parents are criminals that should be deported.
And if they received any public benefits those criminals should have to pay back the citizens of the United States.
[/quote]
I agree that the people should be deported if they are there illegally. However you have not at all proved your point, you have posted an article that states that drop and carry isn’t actually a problem.
There is a cap on the number of cases of deportation that can be blocked due to having a citizen child per year. That cap is 4,000. The cap has not been reached in the last few years, therefore there are not a large number of people even trying to avoid deportation each year based on a so called anchor baby.[/quote]
Fella you are off the reservation.
My issue with anchor babies is that they soak up benefits, that is my major grievance. ALSO, you don’t live here, you don’t know the statistics, and you are obviously unaware of the liberal attitude of California.
Again to be clear, anchor babies soak up benefits and pay criminals to have children. Also to be clear, there is a hesitancy to deport the mother’s of anchor babies.
Also, apparently if you can get the ear of the First Lady you get amnesty publicly which encourages more criminals to have their children here as there are no repercussions.
Lets keep it real, these people know they are coming here illegally. They know the risk and are playing the odds. How weak are we to cave into their crying when they get caught? Fuck them, get them on the first thing smoking out of here.
I take personal offense too Blue, that it took me 5 yrs to get my legal paperwork in order. Because I maintain a level of class within myself. I do not trespass in a land where I am not welcome, then once I get there, I demand with open hands all sorts of rights and privileges that I didn’t earn.
There is a clear difference between people like you and people like me, thank God for that.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Lets keep it real, these people know they are coming here illegally. They know the risk and are playing the odds. How weak are we to cave into their crying when they get caught? Fuck them, get them on the first thing smoking out of here.
I take personal offense too Blue, that it took me 5 yrs to get my legal paperwork in order. Because I maintain a level of class within myself. I do not trespass in a land where I am not welcome, then once I get there, I demand with open hands all sorts of rights and privileges that I didn’t earn.
There is a clear difference between people like you and people like me, thank God for that. [/quote]
I don’t know why you are mad at “illegals” and not mad at the system that creates “illegals”.
Hey OG, I am still waiting for you to explain to me how this Anchor Baby thing actually works. I (well my wife) have a baby due in 3 weeks, I am currently in Mexico. So, we sneak over the border, my wife drops the sprog and then what?
I am seriously interested in a real answer to the question.
How can my wife and I benefit from my Daughter being born in the US instead of Mexico (this is all hypothetical of course, my daughter will automatically have British Nationality as I have British Nationality therefore my daughter (and my wife and I) have the right to enter the US freely on the Visa Waiver program)[/quote]
You don’t see how it would benefit an illegal immigrant to have an anchor baby or are you being disingenuous?
A baby born here is an automatic citizen and if warranted, will receive benefits. Most illegal aliens are in financial difficulty or demonstrate financial difficulty and will be eligible for benefits. As it is not required to prove citizenship to receive these benefits, illegal aliens through their anchor babies relieve lots of benefits.
It does not seem to be the policy of the US to deport the mothers of anchor babies.
If you are wondering about the 21yr old thing, I just was in the office of an immigration attorney who shares space with the attorney that I work for part time. The illegal immigrants are also practicing a new way of having anchor babies called “drop and leave.” They leave and return to get around having to wait 10yrs to apply for citizenship if caught in the US illegally.
But she also said it isn’t the policy of the US to separate families and that is mostly due to bad publicity that would generate. She also said it is similar to a district attorney choosing which cases to prosecute.
[b]u[/u][/b] [quote]Still, Krikorian said, “Now that they have kids, even though it doesn’t create any automatic legal right to stay here, it does create a political pressure, or political difficulty, in deporting people.”[/quote]
I don’t believe that you don’t see how anchor babies soak up resources and offer an “anchor” to the family here in the U.S.
[/quote]
The benefits thing makes sense though that wouldn’t work if they were doing what you suggest of having the baby then leaving. Though that isn’t what is happening according to that you posted? It clearly states:
Actually, did you read either piece? They do deport the parents of children born in the US, thousands per year are deported. What they do however is focus on those that engage in illegal activities as a priority. Now you could argue that they should be deporting more people but that has nothing to do with so called anchor babies.[/quote]
I did read the articles. I also read the part where the Center you quoted stated.:
and it didn’t say in that article that they deport thousands a year. They did say:
[quote]Still, Krikorian said, “Now that they have kids, even though it doesn’t create any automatic legal right to stay here, it does create a political pressure, or political difficulty, in deporting people.”
Because children of illegal immigrants qualify for public programs, they are a major source of the cost of illegal immigration, Krikorian said.[/quote]
I don’t know how long the “drop and carry” practice has been noticed. I did post that it was new.
The attorney also said that families from Mexico were selling their babies to families in the US so they would qualify for those benefits. The family in Mexico would drop and carry their baby, making it a citizen, then they would receive remuneration for the child as the host family would rake in the benefits.
But, whatever the case, I’ve proven my point.
As LIFT stated, the problem I have is with the current disposition of the laws regarding anchor babies.
If you are wondering I would deport the anchor babies and their entire family because they shouldn’t be separated from their parents but their parents are criminals that should be deported.
And if they received any public benefits those criminals should have to pay back the citizens of the United States.
[/quote]
I agree that the people should be deported if they are there illegally. However you have not at all proved your point, you have posted an article that states that drop and carry isn’t actually a problem.
There is a cap on the number of cases of deportation that can be blocked due to having a citizen child per year. That cap is 4,000. The cap has not been reached in the last few years, therefore there are not a large number of people even trying to avoid deportation each year based on a so called anchor baby.[/quote]
Fella you are off the reservation.
My issue with anchor babies is that they soak up benefits, that is my major grievance. ALSO, you don’t live here, you don’t know the statistics, and you are obviously unaware of the liberal attitude of California.
Again to be clear, anchor babies soak up benefits and pay criminals to have children. Also to be clear, there is a hesitancy to deport the mother’s of anchor babies.
Also, apparently if you can get the ear of the First Lady you get amnesty publicly which encourages more criminals to have their children here as there are no repercussions.
[/quote]
Well I just posted a link to a research paper showing that there is a net gain from immigrants. Instead of soundbiting would you care to actually address any of the points in it or try to refute any of the facts?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Lets keep it real, these people know they are coming here illegally. They know the risk and are playing the odds. How weak are we to cave into their crying when they get caught? Fuck them, get them on the first thing smoking out of here.
I take personal offense too Blue, that it took me 5 yrs to get my legal paperwork in order. Because I maintain a level of class within myself. I do not trespass in a land where I am not welcome, then once I get there, I demand with open hands all sorts of rights and privileges that I didn’t earn.
There is a clear difference between people like you and people like me, thank God for that. [/quote]
I don’t know why you are mad at “illegals” and not mad at the system that creates “illegals”.[/quote]
Just because you can doesn’t mean that you should. If you are going to do something, pay the freight on it.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Lets keep it real, these people know they are coming here illegally. They know the risk and are playing the odds. How weak are we to cave into their crying when they get caught? Fuck them, get them on the first thing smoking out of here.
I take personal offense too Blue, that it took me 5 yrs to get my legal paperwork in order. Because I maintain a level of class within myself. I do not trespass in a land where I am not welcome, then once I get there, I demand with open hands all sorts of rights and privileges that I didn’t earn.
There is a clear difference between people like you and people like me, thank God for that. [/quote]
How is there a clear difference? I also moved to a different country and followed the legal immigration process.
I agree that people wanting to move to the US should follow the correct legal procedures and that anyone who doesn’t can’t bitch about the consequences. Where we differ though is that you are just regurgitating Fox News propaganda.
You have not offered up any solutions to the issue. You just want to bitch and moan about the symptoms without engaging your brain and looking at the real causes.
Here is a video that a lot of you guys should relate to
I have listed suggestions, like ENFORCE THE LAWS. Also militarize the border, remove any and all benefits for those who come here illegally. You make it a living hell to be here illegally. No benefits, no citizenship, no welfare, no housing, no schooling for anchor babies, check citizenship for: jobs, during an encounter with police. You declare English the official language and eliminate all catering to other languages.
One main difference between you and I is that I didn’t speak a word of English when I came here, and ESL didn’t exist back then. Imagine going to elementary school not having a clue what the teachers, students, or books said. That was my situation. I HAD to learn English and I wanted to.
You run a tight ship, either follow the rules or G.T.F.O. with no exceptions !!!