Are you people comlpetely brainwashed? Or do you live in an igloo somewhere and are oblivious to what is becoming an epidemic in this country? I hope you enjoy speaking spanish and spending pesos, because at the rate it’s going the hispanics who will be the majority(check the census for the fastest growing demographics)and who will they vote for? So when the 47th president is Rivera or Ortiz and congress is taking siestas and making laws in favor of unlimited assistance for families with unlimited babies,then what. I don’t reek of stupidity, i bleed red white and blue!!! So take your heads out of the sand!!!
So, what is the problem with a baby having US citizenship? He or she can’t “anchor” a parent in this country; an undocumented parent is still subject to deportation & the child will be deported, too. Until that child is an adult; if he or she is sufficiently prosperous, relatives can be sponsored.
Here’s the website for that poor, beleaguered hospital. How much of that uncompensated care is for aliens, legal or otherwise? And how much emergency room care* is* compensated? (At the jacked-up rates used for the uninsured.) Apparently enough for the hospital to boast of its Emergency Center.
Hey, this New Yorker article from last year tries to explain why McAllen has the most expensive health care in the country. Immigration has nothing to do with it.
Edited to add: lepermesiah399, please continue to speak for your side!
That would appear to be a woman giving birth to a child in the US for the purpose of obtaining free medical care, not so that her child will be a US citizen.
Something that was addressed earlier in the thread is that the “anchor baby” concept doesn’t actually work - a child cannot sponsor its parents for citizenship or even for residency until he/she hits 18. USCIS will happily deport the parents whether or not their minor child is a citizen, and they can decide whether the baby stays or goes.
[QUOTE=lepermesiah399]
I hope you enjoy speaking spanish and spending pesos, because at the rate it’s going the hispanics who will be the majority(check the census for the fastest growing demographics)and who will they vote for?
[/QUOTE]
Hispanics, a majority? Oh no! The white man is doomed.
Riiiight.
ETA: I see Bridget beat me to it on the anchor baby thing.
I have a hard time imagining a horde mothers about to pop swimming the Rio Grande. Cuz lord knows that’s when your at your peak for swimming. such impeccable timing,too. Let’s see I will time it so my water breaks during the swim, then walk a few blocks to give birth right at the hospitals door.
Well, it kind of explains why American workers can’t compete with illegal immigrants.
Well, according to the US Census Bureau, Hispanics make up 15.4% of the population and White, Non-hispanic account for 65.6% , so I think you have a few days to order your Spanish Rosetta Stone software before the Brown Horde™ take over.
Correct.
But note the difference between this argument and sleeping’s, who denies that it happens. You say, “Yes, perhaps it happens, but what of it? There is very little benefit to be gained.”
Having said that, I will point out two benefits: a baby with US citizenship now is an 18-year-old that can come to the US, start working, and send money back home in 18 years. That’s a long view, but it’s not nothing.
Secondly, many people argue that it’s inhumane to split up families composed of both citizens and non-citizens. You point out that illegal immigrant parents with citizen children are subject to deportation; I am saying that many people regard this as cruel.
So what? It’s not as though the child is going to be left behind, unless there’s another family member here legally who can care for him - and even then, it’s a sticky issue.
I am not sure if I understood the part about sending money. Are you saying this is a negative?
And a good example that they do break up families is the case several weeks ago where a man was beaten to death (ruled a homicide by the SD coroner) by the Border Patrol in San Diego. He had 5 children born in the USA. But since they buried him there I suppose that could be considered an anchor in a black humor kind of way.
Well, speaking strictly from an American point of view, yes.
Sending money out of the US affects our balance of payments, since we’re not getting anything back. I’m not sure that the amounts we’re talking about are enough to make an appreciable difference in terms of foreign exchange, and the like, but it certainly doesn’t do the US any good.
A link to FAIR quoting a Florida county newspaper? Really?
I first heard the term “anchor baby” when Hong Kong was about to be handed back to China. There were (supposedly) many wealthy Hong Kong residents coming to the US on tourist visas to give birth so that their children would have US Citizenship.
Really!
So when Obama gives amnesty or legal citzenship to how many? what will the %'s look like then.Once again are you one,marrying one, or employing many to line your own pocket?
Wikipedia says it originated with the Vietnamese boat people in the 80s.
Um, okay, just for yucks: Why would it matter?
Because some people have great difficulty conjugating verbs in Romance languages?
You do that personally every time you buy a foreign made object. And as far as getting anything back, we are one of your largest trading partners. We buy a lot of the things you sell so in an indirect way some of that money does come back to you.
And a person’s money is their own private property. It doesn’t belong to the country or the government. What gives anyone else the right to tell them how to spend it? I am sure you would complain vigorously if someone told you what you can do with your private property. Where is this freedom and liberty Americans are so proud of?
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are spending many millions of US dollars in other parts of the world. Is this considered a negative?