PDA

View Full Version : Anchor Babies


aktrekker
13-08-10, 07:10
I know there are other threads about immigration. But I thought this was different enough to stand on its own.

Anchor babies are the babies illegal immigrants have. The babies are born in the US so they are automatically US citizens. This gives a "legal" way for the parents to get in to the US.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20100812/pl_yblog_upshot/are-anchor-babies-a-widespread-problem

Meanwhile, about 1 U.S. birth in 12 was to an illegal-immigrant parent in 2008 — suggesting that the number of U.S. citizens with an illegal-immigrant parent is on the rise. And the debate over the legal status of these children (whom immigration-crackdown advocates pejoratively call "anchor babies") is gaining visibility as more Republican leaders are banking on an anti-illegal-immigration message in the 2010 midterms.
I'm not racist at all. But I am against illegal immigration.
So when I read a statistic like that above my jaw drops. If that is even close to accurate it means this is an epidemic (not that I think it's a disease or anything, but if it was it would be way past epidemic levels).

So does anyone else consider immigration to be an election issue this fall?

Ward Dragon
13-08-10, 07:30
So does anyone else consider immigration to be an election issue this fall?

Yup, I've already heard that the Republican minority leader of the House wants to change the 14th Amendment so that future children of illegal immigrants won't be citizens.

Changing the Constitution's guarantee of U.S. citizenship for anyone born in the United States is "worth considering" if it helps reduce illegal immigration, the Republican leader in the House of Representatives said Sunday. "It's a serious problem that affects our country, and in certain parts of our country clearly our schools, our hospitals are being overrun by illegal immigrants. A lot of them came here just so their children could become U.S. citizens.

They should do it the legal way," House Minority Leader John Boehner told NBC's "Meet the Press."

The Ohio congressman, who could become speaker of the House if Republicans win back control of the chamber in November, is the latest GOP leader to float the idea of changing the 14th Amendment. Several leading GOP senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and 2008 presidential nominee John McCain, have said they would support holding hearings into the matter as part of the heated debate over immigration.

The Reconstruction-era amendment guarantees equal protection of law and defines who is a U.S. citizen. Critics of illegal immigration have long accused migrants -- particularly those coming from Mexico or Latin American countries -- of giving birth to children in the United States in hopes that their babies' citizenship will keep them in the country.

The amendment has been cited as the foundation of U.S. civil rights law in cases ranging from Brown v. Board of Education to last week's decision that struck down a ban on same-sex marriage in California. Changing it would require a two-thirds vote of both houses of Congress and the approval of three-quarters of state legislatures.

Boehner said Sunday he's "not the expert on this issue," but "I think it's worth considering."

"There is a problem," he told NBC. "To provide an incentive for illegal immigrants to come here so that their children can be U.S. citizens does, in fact, draw more people to our country."

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/08/08/pol.boehner.immigration/index.html

Edit: Ah, didn't realize it was linked to in your story already but oh well, this is a different version of the story to add to the discussion :p

Legend 4ever
13-08-10, 07:37
I just cannot believe someone can manage being an illegal alien for a long period of time. I mean, the process of legal immigration is kinda long and well, strict to some extent, especially if it's for a longer period. I have many friends who have been to US, I have also gotten a visa to be here, study and live. I would be really scared to stay in the US if I knew I legally couldn't. I just don't know how they do it.

So illegal immigration is a huge issue, of course. But I'm not so sure the children of illegal aliens should be seen as a threat. I mean sure, the solutions are few: ship them all back to the country they came from, or just keep them all in US. I don't see a compromise there, so it would be really good if someone offered one.

And I know a lot of people can get offended by this, but US is not Mexico. We cannot and don't have to speak Spanish. Incidentally, I do, but why should someone else, if they don't want to. When I lived in Utah, I couldn't even buy a hamburger normally at McDonald's, or Carl's Jr. because I could not understand a word the cashier was saying to me. And they talk in Spanish to one another, I just feel it's really rude to do it.

Oh, and also, there was this huge amount of kids in my HS who would just speak Spanish all the time. Not just on lunch, but during classes too. Most of them spoke English perfectly though, and I was so angry to see that they are intentionally rejecting the official language (or rather, de facto national language). And I'm not saying they shouldn't speak Spanish, but if you're in school, classes are in English, the teachers don't speak Spanish etc. and you still want to speak a language no one around you understands, we have a problem.

I'm rambling, but here's an idea: keep the people who have already had their kids in US and leave them be, but make it less possible for people to immigrate illegally. I've also heard on the radio that the US checks up on people who enter, but not the ones who leave, which is absurd and I cannot even believe it. This way, it makes it a lot easier even for the people who came here legally to become illegal. This should not be happening in the year 2010.

TippingWater
13-08-10, 07:41
Oh, and also, there was this huge amount of kids in my HS who would just speak Spanish all the time. Not just on lunch, but during classes too. Most of them spoke English perfectly though, but I was so angry to see that they are intentionally rejecting the official language. And I'm not saying they shouldn't speak Spanish, but if you're in school, classes are in English, the teachers don't speak Spanish etc. and you still want to speak a language no one around you understands, we have a problem.
:tmb:

Ward Dragon
13-08-10, 07:47
I've also heard on the radio that the US checks up on people who enter, but not the ones who leave, which is absurd and I cannot even believe it. This way, it makes it a lot easier even for the people who came here legally to become illegal. This should not be happening in the year 2010.

Yes, that's true. A lot of illegal immigrants don't sneak in, they just overstay their visas (and that includes several of the 9/11 terrorists, so it's a real security issue).

This article is old (2003) but it's on the government website so I assume that's as official as it gets :p

The majority of visitors who are tracked depart on time, but others overstay. Four of the 9/11 hijackers who entered the United States with legal visas overstayed their authorized periods of admission...

Significant numbers of foreign visitors overstay their authorized periods of admission. The Department of Homeland Security estimates the resident overstay population at 2.3 million as of January 2000.

http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-170T

Cochrane
13-08-10, 08:12
Specifically relating to the anchor babies, I have to wonder: How long do you have to wait to become a legal US resident if you have a child that is a US citizen? I’ve heard something of about 30 years, including a mandatory waiting period in the original home country, so if this is true I would be surprised if that is an actual problem. But maybe there are other ways?

Generally speaking, I don’t think the problem of illegal immigration is one that can be solved on the US side of the border only. As long as the US offers a better life or at least more money than Mexico, people will try to cross the border. You can build walls or change laws out of fear of them, but the only way to get rid of massive illegal immigration without becoming a police state is to make living in the home countries more attractive.

Mokono
13-08-10, 08:50
Specifically relating to the anchor babies, I have to wonder: How long do you have to wait to become a legal US resident if you have a child that is a US citizen? I’ve heard something of about 30 years, including a mandatory waiting period in the original home country, so if this is true I would be surprised if that is an actual problem. But maybe there are other ways?

You just reminded me a cartoon someone forwarded me before:

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/9765/cartoongd.th.jpg (http://img696.imageshack.us/i/cartoongd.jpg/)

Generally speaking, I don’t think the problem of illegal immigration is one that can be solved on the US side of the border only. As long as the US offers a better life or at least more money than Mexico, people will try to cross the border. You can build walls or change laws out of fear of them, but the only way to get rid of massive illegal immigration without becoming a police state is to make living in the home countries more attractive.

I agree, but i don't think that the fact the US offers "better life" can be used as a justification for illegal immigration; i mean, the welfare there is the result of the hard work of taxpayers (said otherwise: legal citizens), so this get everything and do nothing seems like mere leeching of resources. Also this "attractiveness" you mention is the result of nothing but US based propaganda and I'm safe to point CNN en Español as a pretty good example of it. That channel portrays the US as an "Spanish speaking" alter universe where the "hispanic" lifestyle is the norm and everything is "hispanic-friendly" there. They interview people to say how proud they're for having bad jobs that "no American would like to do" as if it was something to be bragging about (cleaning toilets never was so glamorous, right?). Such apotheosis to illegal immigration can only mean one thing to me: profit (or any related kind of benefit for one particular subject or entity). Everyone knows that is cheaper to have 40 immigrants doing the work of 10 legals, so the problem lies in the double moral masked as political correctness that focus more in the shape of the issue (people having needs) than in the bottom of it (people residing illegally in the US).

Cochrane
13-08-10, 10:03
I agree, but i don't think that the fact the US offers "better life" can be used as a justification for illegal immigration; i mean, the welfare there is the result of the hard work of taxpayers (said otherwise: legal citizens), so this get everything and do nothing seems like mere leeching of resources. Also this "attractiveness" you mention is the result of nothing but US based propaganda and I'm safe to point CNN en Español as a pretty good example of it. That channel portrays the US as an "Spanish speaking" alter universe where the "hispanic" lifestyle is the norm and everything is "hispanic-friendly" there. They interview people to say how proud they're for having bad jobs that "no American would like to do" as if it was something to be bragging about (cleaning toilets never was so glamorous, right?). Such apotheosis to illegal immigration can only mean one thing to me: profit (or any related kind of benefit for one particular subject or entity). Everyone knows that is cheaper to have 40 immigrants doing the work of 10 legals, so the problem lies in the double moral masked as political correctness that focus more in the shape of the issue (people having needs) than in the bottom of it (people residing illegally in the US).

Better life does not just or even mainly include welfare; for example, your average chance to be killed by drug gangs seems to be lower in the US than in some parts of Mexico at the moment. Also, wages even for illegals can often be higher than what the person could earn in their home country.

You are right, of course, when you say that there are people in the US who have an interest in illegal immigration continuing. The US government has to find ways to make it less attractive to hire illegals if they really want to solve the problem.

aktrekker
13-08-10, 21:33
Specifically relating to the anchor babies, I have to wonder: How long do you have to wait to become a legal US resident if you have a child that is a US citizen? I’ve heard something of about 30 years, including a mandatory waiting period in the original home country, so if this is true I would be surprised if that is an actual problem. But maybe there are other ways?

It's mentioned in the article.
Meanwhile, children have to wait until they are 21 to seek legal status for an illegal-immigrant parent. According to Politifact, "Only 4,000 unauthorized immigrants can receive such status per year, and the alien has to have been in the U.S. for at least 10 years."

Super Badnik
13-08-10, 22:32
Oh, and also, there was this huge amount of kids in my HS who would just speak Spanish all the time. Not just on lunch, but during classes too. Most of them spoke English perfectly though, and I was so angry to see that they are intentionally rejecting the official language (or rather, de facto national language). And I'm not saying they shouldn't speak Spanish, but if you're in school, classes are in English, the teachers don't speak Spanish etc. and you still want to speak a language no one around you understands, we have a problem.I know it's inconvient but spanish is probably the language they were brought up speaking and is simply their first choice of language. I know it can seem alienating but thats probably all it is. Plus I can't help but notice the rest of the world is often forced to learn and speak English anyway.

Alpharaider47
13-08-10, 22:35
I know it's inconvient but spanish is probably the language they were brought up speaking and is simply their first choice of language. I know it can seem alienating but thats probably all it is. Plus I can't help but notice the rest of the world is often forced to learn and speak English anyway.

But see, if you're in a country where the dominant language is English, and you want to speak Spanish or something, you're gonna run into problems. If we were in Mexico, they'd probably expect us all to learn Spanish. I think that people should at least make an effort to learn the language of the country they're in.

Super Badnik
13-08-10, 22:43
But see, if you're in a country where the dominant language is English, and you want to speak Spanish or something, you're gonna run into problems. If we were in Mexico, they'd probably expect us all to learn Spanish. I think that people should at least make an effort to learn the language of the country they're in.Yes, your point is very true, you really should learn the language of your new country of choice for convience sakes if nothing else. But if Spanish is their first language it makes sense they would use it with fellow spanish sepakers. As for the comment about the rest of world learning English, I was more meaning people who don't move to the US/UK but have to pick English up for the sake of either tourism or immigrants.

Alpharaider47
13-08-10, 22:50
Yes, your point is very true, you really should learn the language of your new country of choice for convience sakes if nothing else. But if Spanish is their first language it makes sense they would use it with fellow spanish sepakers. As for the comment about the rest of world learning English, I was more meaning people who don't move to the US/UK but have to pick English up for the sake of either tourism or immigrants.

Oh, yes that's understandable. As for the world, unfortunately that seems to be an inevitable product of globalisation =/

Mad Tony
13-08-10, 22:54
Oh, yes that's understandable. As for the world, unfortunately that seems to be an inevitable product of globalisation =/Why unfortunately? :D

Alpharaider47
13-08-10, 22:55
Why unfortunately? :D

Well it's good and bad. A lot of languages are dying out because of it. So if you're into that stuff, preserving that history and all it's unfortunate.

Super Badnik
13-08-10, 23:07
Why unfortunately? :DWell there is Alpharaider's point. Also some would see it as unfair that people would have to have a complete overhaul of their language and culture to suit globalisation.

Alpharaider47
13-08-10, 23:14
Well there is Alpharaider's point. Also some would see it as unfair that people would have to have a complete overhaul of their language and culture to suit globalisation.

More or less.

To steer a bit back towards anchor babies, I think at the moment we need to get rid of it because since nobody's really doing much about job creation(that i can tell) we're having to compete with illegal immigrants for unskilled jobs and such. So if we cut that part for now and turned around and made it easier for immigrants to get in legally i think it would help us a bit.

Mad Tony
13-08-10, 23:20
Well it's good and bad. A lot of languages are dying out because of it. So if you're into that stuff, preserving that history and all it's unfortunate.The languages that are dying out are the tribal ones that only very few people speak. The fact that English is spoken globally is irrelevant.

Alpharaider47
13-08-10, 23:25
The languages that are dying out are the tribal ones that only very few people speak. The fact that English is spoken globally is irrelevant.

This is true, however other languages and cultures come in from the outside, driving the change in use, etc. There becomes less of a need to keep using that language so you stop and adopt what you use to survive.

Mad Tony
13-08-10, 23:37
This is true, however other languages and cultures come in from the outside, driving the change in use, etc. There becomes less of a need to keep using that language so you stop and adopt what you use to survive.All of the major languages would play a part in that. If anything, languages other than English are more to blame. For example, I believe there are a fair few tribal languages in Brazil and I expect the reason why they're dying out is because now prefer to speak Portuguese to integrate with the rest of the population.

Alpharaider47
13-08-10, 23:38
All of the major languages would play a part in that. If anything, languages other than English are more to blame. For example, I believe there are a fair few tribal languages in Brazil and I expect the reason why they're dying out is because now prefer to speak Portuguese to integrate with the rest of the population.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it was solely English, I mean just dominant languages in general.

Ward Dragon
14-08-10, 05:06
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that it was solely English, I mean just dominant languages in general.

It's sad to see parts of history falling away, but on the other hand speaking the same language allows people to communicate with each other and share viewpoints that probably wouldn't have been heard otherwise. It has benefits as well :)

scoopy_loopy
14-08-10, 05:20
I like that English is widely spoken, it allows greater discussion between the population of our planet - I hope that it doesn't eventually lead to the death of LOTEs, but at the moment I think all it's doing is encouraging is bi-lingual-ism for non-UK/Oceanian/North American/South African natives.

I'm kinda jealous I wasn't raised bi-lingual, actually :p

Legend 4ever
14-08-10, 06:41
Yes, your point is very true, you really should learn the language of your new country of choice for convience sakes if nothing else. But if Spanish is their first language it makes sense they would use it with fellow spanish sepakers. As for the comment about the rest of world learning English, I was more meaning people who don't move to the US/UK but have to pick English up for the sake of either tourism or immigrants.

At home or when they're going out, yes. In class, no.

Alpharaider47
14-08-10, 06:47
It's sad to see parts of history falling away, but on the other hand speaking the same language allows people to communicate with each other and share viewpoints that probably wouldn't have been heard otherwise. It has benefits as well :)

Yeah, it's definitely a double-edged sword.

freeze10108
16-08-10, 19:49
Let me tell you something guys, anchor babies are most definitely NOT the problem that they're being made out to be. First of all, the idea of someone waddling across the border to get to a hospital as they're in labor to have the baby in the US is just preposterous. Second, even if that did happen, in order for the proposed anchor baby "theory" to work correctly, the baby must be at least 21 years of age, and be financially independent so that the family moving to the US won't be a burden on the economy. That would take even longer. Just going through the proper channels for legal immigration would likely take less than half that amount of time. Stephen Colbert has a very good segment (http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/343698/august-10-2010/citizenship-down---akhil-amar?xrs=share_digg) on this.

Further, people not "learning" the language of the US is a stupid point. There are ****ing waiting lists of people wanting to take ESL/EFL classes; the desire is there, but the ability and resources to fulfill all these desires isn't. This, however, brings up the point of English being a fairly difficult language to learn past a moderately-basic level. It takes years of study to develop a good level of fluency (around 7 for English, I believe), and even then some things can throw speakers for a loop.