I’m not seeing this until more than a week later because I just about never look at this forum, except that this pile of posts popped up while I was searching for something else.
But I would just like to address the substantive issue of whether the previously named “anchor baby” canard was, in this instance and in the context mentioned, an actual lie. In doing so, I would like to note that a) as shown by my previous link in the thread in question, having a baby in the U.S. does not in any way grant the mother any automatic legal authorization to remain legally in the U.S., and in fact the U.S. citizen child cannot even petition for his/her monther’s permanent residentce until he/she turns 21, and even after that these cases are by no means a slamdunk; and b) magellan01 acknowlegded afterwards that he was well aware of that fact (and it’s been discussed ad nauseam in other immigration-related threads).
So at what point is a person allowed to call a spade a spade? I’m off to re-read the sticky on lies and lying in GD.
The idea is that you can attack the factual accuracy of what someone says, but there’s not much point in getting into whether or not they mean what they are saying- it’s insulting and tends to turn the whole thing into a personal argument. If a poster makes a claim and you know they’ve admitted it to be untrue with the past, I’d just call them on it and post the quotes side by side.
At what point can we call an anchor baby an anchor baby? They exist. You know they exist. You acknowledge they exist. You assumed I didn’t know the age restrictions. I did. But even if I didn’t, the very fact that age restrictions exist proves the existence of the very group I was pointing to, but you feel the need to defend or apologize for. :rolleyes:
You seem troubled by the difference between snide and insulting. I could explain it to you from my point of view, but that doesn’t really matter. You might want to ask the mods of you’re so interested, as they acknowledge a difference between the two and their distinction is the one that matters. “Snide” seems to fall short of “insulting”.
I don’t have the time or the inclination to get into a pointless pissing match with you. But I think it bears repeating that you knew full well that there is no way that having a baby born in the U.S. provides any immediate guarantee of the right to remain in the U.S., let alone a green card or citizenship - there is a possibility that 21+ years down the road, the U.S.-born child could petition for his/her parents, but even then there are no guarantees.
And yet, you persisted in perpetuating information which you knew not to be the complete truth, and which is pretty damn misleading. The reason I responded more forcefully than usual is that I knew that you knew better, and yet you were repeating that B.S. anyway. Not to mention talking about women “plopping out babies” like they were farm animals. It’s dehumanizing to people whose only crime is choosing what they perceived as the least shitty of the available options to better their situation, and that’s what made me respond the way I did.
Personally, I am keenly aware that it’s just an accident of history that I had the good fortune to be born in the U.S. because of the choices my great-grandparents made. If history had been just a shade different, I would have been born in some Godforsaken East European shtetl, or, given how WWII treated the Jewish communities where my ancestors hail from (now located in Latvia, Poland, Ukraine, and Belarus), not born at all. If only you were a tad more self-aware, you might have a little compassion for those less fortunate.
And now, off to work - I have a desk full of huddling masses.
Which might be why I didn’t say that. Imagine that. What I did describe happens. What I said was 100% factual. It’s just the case that the criminals have to wait 21 years for part of their plan to bear fruit. You even acknowledge so. It’s just as wrong for to allows these criminals to benefit from their crime today, nine months from now or 21 years from now. You don’t like the fact that I characterize these people by their own actions? Ha. You want to swath them in a blanket of “poor widdle people just trying to make a better life”. That we should understand and accept them, maybe even help them(?). How about this: you want understanding and acceptance, don’t break our fucking laws and come into our country legally. Simple. And if you choose to not abide by that, you can go fuck yourself. (And by “you” I do not mean Eva Luna, I mean the illegals themselves—baby-ploppers and the rest of them. Should be obvious, but just to be clear.)
If the two of you want to reargue this issue, please take it back to the original thread (or a new one). This isn’t GD, it’s just for questions about the rules.
I’m done with this whole entire topic (the topic of this specific thread, not immigration-related discussions in general) until further notice. Fine by me - I don’t feel like banging my head against the wall anymore. I have work to do, and a life.