Anchor babies

[vraiblonde]

The mantra - on both sides of the aisle - is that deporting illegal immigrants will tear apart families, separate parents from their children, etc.

I answered myself the first time I questioned this:

How will this tear families apart? Because the anchor baby is a legal American and entitled to say here.

But that begs the follow up question: Why wouldn't they take their child with them? Does Mexico forbid their citizens bringing in US born minor offspring?

That's a real question. When an illegal immigrant is deported, as they should be, why can't they take their child with them?

 

[vraiblonde]

Also, how does that work with truly migrant workers - those who come over here for temporary work, and then go back to Mexico because that's where they live? If a woman is over here on a temporary visa, and she gives birth, can she not take her child back to Mexico with her?

I say "Mexico" but it could be any nationality or country. It's just that Mexican illegals are in the news and the most prominent bitchers about our immigration laws, so I specified them.

 

[Bird Dog]

The answer is simple.....they can!

 

[vraiblonde]

The answer is simple.....they can!

Why don't they, then? Why are the parrots insisting that sending Mommy and Dad back to their country will separate them from their US-born children?

 

[luvmygdaughters]

In my opinion only, if two illegal immigrants have a child here...the child should also be an illegal immigrant. That would certainly stop the influx of pregnant women sneaking over the border for the sole purpose of the having the child here for that reason.

 

[RareBreed]

Why don't they, then? Why are the parrots insisting that sending Mommy and Dad back to their country will separate them from their US-born children?

They are just using that as an excuse of why they have to stay here in the US.

 

[Bird Dog]

Why don't they, then? Why are the parrots insisting that sending Mommy and Dad back to their country will separate them from their US-born children?

Typical Liberal talking points......

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The mantra - on both sides of the aisle - is that deporting illegal immigrants will tear apart families, separate parents from their children, etc.

I answered myself the first time I questioned this:

How will this tear families apart? Because the anchor baby is a legal American and entitled to say here.

But that begs the follow up question: Why wouldn't they take their child with them? Does Mexico forbid their citizens bringing in US born minor offspring?

That's a real question. When an illegal immigrant is deported, as they should be, why can't they take their child with them?

This is the problem with Trump's talking points. Not all anchor babies are from Mexican-born parents. Many come from other South American countries where they'd rather chance their child being here alone (if need be) than take them back to a #### hole country where murders and gangs run things.

 

[Misfit]

Is Mexico really that bad that they don't want to live there? Kind of like our NJ?

 

[SamSpade]

Is Mexico really that bad that they don't want to live there? Kind of like our NJ?

If you think Trump is hostile to Mexicans - you should see how Mexicans treat immigrants from the south of THEIR country.

 

[vraiblonde]

This is the problem with Trump's talking points. Not all anchor babies are from Mexican-born parents. Many come from other South American countries where they'd rather chance their child being here alone (if need be) than take them back to a #### hole country where murders and gangs run things.

Get off of Trump. This anchor baby thing has been going on since at least Carter, which is as far back as I can personally remember. So I'm sure it goes back farther than that.

And I already said I used Mexico as an example, but my question is for all foreign countries.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Get off of Trump. This anchor baby thing has been going on since at least Carter, which is as far back as I can personally remember. So I'm sure it goes back farther than that.

And I already said I used Mexico as an example, but my question is for all foreign countries.

Then your question is answered.

 

[vraiblonde]

Then your question is answered.

Having a hard time today, are we?

My question was: Why can't foreigners who give birth to their child in the US take that child back with them to their own country?

Do you have an answer for that?

 

[SamSpade]

Having a hard time today, are we?

My question was: Why can't foreigners who give birth to their child in the US take that child back with them to their own country?

Do you have an answer for that?

The only complaint I think I really get is, if the child in question has lived here more than ten years, speaks only English and has no connection to their native land other than Mom and Dad.

Yeah, a stretch, since most Latin families I know do practice Spanish at home - my younger brother, for example.

 

[glhs837]

Even so, that would be rewarding the parents for successfully evading deportation. not that it's so hard. Since you can go to the MVA and actually show the state you are illegal and not worry about it.......

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Having a hard time today, are we?

My question was: Why can't foreigners who give birth to their child in the US take that child back with them to their own country?

Do you have an answer for that?

No, you asked two questions and didn't specify that you only wanted one answered.

The mantra - on both sides of the aisle - is that deporting illegal immigrants will tear apart families, separate parents from their children, etc.

I answered myself the first time I questioned this:

How will this tear families apart? Because the anchor baby is a legal American and entitled to say here.

But that begs the follow up question: Why wouldn't they take their child with them? Does Mexico forbid their citizens bringing in US born minor offspring?

That's a real question. When an illegal immigrant is deported, as they should be, why can't they take their child with them?

They certainly can take their child home, but that would involve actually getting them there. If they are deported, the US isn't paying for the child to essentially travel to another country they aren't a citizen of. The parents would have to do that. I imagine most don't have the money to get their child to their home country and process the paperwork needed to make them a citizen of said country. Instead, the parent gets deported and the child goes into foster care.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Even so, that would be rewarding the parents for successfully evading deportation. not that it's so hard. Since you can go to the MVA and actually show the state you are illegal and not worry about it.......

Which begs the question...

If they aren't a criminal, why not give them a chance to become a citizen and pay taxes, like we all do?

 

[SamSpade]

Even so, that would be rewarding the parents for successfully evading deportation. not that it's so hard. Since you can go to the MVA and actually show the state you are illegal and not worry about it.......

This is where I think deportation would have to be in a matter of degrees. You would have to prioritize who needs to leave FIRST - then second - then third - and eventually reach a point where it's impractical to proceed further.

Let me give you an otherwise dumb example - I've mentioned before I do statistical work at my job - some of it census work (get everyone) some of it survey work (sample).

When we do a census of say, industry, we capture as much of the industry we can. But we do so by grabbing the top contributors to the area we're researching, all the way down until we reach a point of diminishing returns.
For example, in a given field, perhaps 100 companies provide 99% of the revenue or employment - but there might be a few THOUSAND in that field. Since we might have an error rate that would exceed the precision gained by getting *everyone* -
we don't waste money on everyone. It wastes money, and the data isn't any better.

It's easy to see that if you put in order who needs to be kicked out, you may reach a point where you're dealing with perhaps a million or so who have been here more than ten years and have not broken any laws - and are willing to comply with citizenship requirements. I think leniency is ok for them, so long as all the ones before them have been dealt with. You can levy fines or what have you, but I can see a case where one size fits all isn't going to work.

 

[SamSpade]

Which begs the question...

If they aren't a criminal, why not give them a chance to become a citizen and pay taxes, like we all do?

Let me start by being a language ####### - I hate it when "begs the question" is used for "raises the question". I realize even journalists, who should know better, use it, but I still hate it.

You do realize how long it can take to gain entry here, right? It's not for naught that people talk about "cutting in line".If they want to come here, let them start at the back of the line like everyone else.
If they still want to, let them do that.

When we were leaving Russia, there was a line around the block and a crowd inside the American embassy for people seeking visas and work visas to come to the United States.
Before that, we had to acquire permission for our son to leave the country, and the local oblast office was packed - and I mean, shoulder to shoulder packed so you could barely breathe packed - with people trying to get approval.
Fortunately our facilitator was extra pushy and pushed to the front so we could get our business done, because unlike everyone else who were seeking permission, we'd already been cleared by phone.

For most places - coming here is a very long struggle. Especially if you don't have very many valuable skills.

 

[This_person]

Which begs the question...

If they aren't a criminal, why not give them a chance to become a citizen and pay taxes, like we all do?

Their very first action upon setting foot on US soil (assuming illegal entry) is to violate the law. If they're overstaying their visa, they've already demonstrated a willing action that is counter to law. In effect, they are breaking and entering, just a country instead of a home or business.

Why would we want to import citizens who have thumbed their nose at our laws from the very beginning?