And it just won’t die no matter how many times it is debunked, and I’ve even seen a nonsensical reversal from the other side with stuff like “US deports US citizen baby” when they really mean the parents chose not to abandon their child in the USA, a child who incidentally has citizenship.
I have trouble understanding how a total myth has become so pervasive.
I would be surprised if nobody has ever come into the US illegally in order to ensure that their child is a US citizen by birth. I don’t think it happens every day, or that it is a significant problem for the US, but why wouldn’t someone do that if they had the chance?
According to Wiki, the term anchor baby first appeared in print in 1996.
What, exactly, has been debunked? Is it your claim that no one, ever, has come to the US in order to have a baby so that the baby could become a US citizen? That would be one helluva thing to prove!
It’s my understanding that it’s nowhere near as pervasive as some would have us think, and that it’s more of “a thing” for Asians than Mexicans, but it definitely happens.
No, not what I am claiming. I’m claiming no one has ever used a baby with citizenship to anchor themselves in the USA. The “give birth on USA soil, then leave with child and 21 years later have that child move to the USA and then sponsor direct family members for immigration benefits” thing is not what is meant by the term.
You can’t even transition to permanent resident status while inside the US if you never legally entered in the first place.
It would be 18 years, not 21.
Two things, though:
How do you prove that no one has ever done this.
It doesn’t really matter whether anyone has successfully done it, but whether or not people are trying to do it. And there is no doubt they are, even if not in the numbers that someone like Trump would have us believe.
Yes and no. Isn’t it true that you only need to be 18 to petition for a spouse or a child? The post I responded to just said “direct family member”.
Correct, but you need to be 21 to petition for a parent, which is the relevant situation for this discussion, no?
I am still uncertain what the GQ question here is. That is, what is the question for which there is a factual answer? So, not sure I can determine what the “relevant situation” is. I was just responding to a post that said “direct family members”, not “parent”.
If a US citizen baby has never anchored a non-citizen parent to the US, why did the term start and why does it continue seemingly even gaining use would sum it up.
Imagine as a fictional example 'assault food ’ was a term that came into being, and people even talked and debated about the need to ban this dangerous consumable that can be used to hurt or kill others for decades, but it never existed in the first place.
How do you know it never happened? And if it never happened, how do you know no one ever tried? If Americans are ignorant of the rules, isn’t it also possible that foreigners would be, also?
And then, finally, since when has reality forced a political charged term out of existence? I’m honestly not sure there is a factual answer to that question. People find it politically useful to use the term, and so they keep using it. The American electorate is not famous for being rigorously informed on any issue, much less immigration.
It’s like the term Welfare Queen. It preys on the fears that people have of how others must be gaming the system.
I was responding to the theme of the thread, which as I understood it, was “can having a child born in the U.S. in itself give a person a right to remain in the U.S.?” To which the answer, the vast majority of the time, is “no.”
What is the answer to the actual question being asked? Emphasis added.
I’m not trying to lend credence to the term, just note that I think the OP is overstating the case.
I’m amazed that anyone is actually disputing that this is a real phenomenon. It may not be common, and there are certainly other reasons why people might want to engage in birth tourism, but it does happen.
Here’s a Google translation (sorry) from the FAQs at StarBabyCare.com, which claims to have hosted 4,000 pregnant women since it was founded in 1999:
Yes, it happens every day. There are a few thousands of rich Russians’ wives that go to Miami to have the baby. Two reasons - one is that the hospitals here are better, and the second is US citizenship for the baby. There are a few companies that facilitate it. Here’s one. I am pretty familiar with that because my parents live in that area and know all about it, and I see the women and their kids out on the beaches/seaside pools all the time. A few thousand Chinese every year (maybe more than a few thousand, not sure) do the same but usually on the West coast somewhere. Not sure what other countries are involved, but there should definitely be some from India/Pakistan as well. A US citizenship for the kid (if you can afford it - these services are not cheap) is a great insurance in life.
I don’t really think that particular phenomenon is a significant problem for the US. Those people are richer than the average American, and will not be a drain on the social support systems here if they ever decide to settle in the US.
There are also (IIRC the estimates) about 400,000 kids born to illegal immigrants in the US, annually. Now, arguably, those parents are not in the US specifically to have the baby, but the rationale to have the birth here in the US vs in the native countries is the same - definitely better health care, and definitely the kid having the citizenship doesn’t hurt.
To follow up - I was reading that Miami Mama web site and they mention that the other countries that have this thriving US-born-baby demand are Turkey, Argentina and Brazil.
This story in the LA Times says that Birth Tourism is popular among wealth Chinese. It estimates that 40,000 births per year in the US are a result of birth tourism. That is 13.3% of the total births to foreign nationals in the US.
Why do you think it’s a total myth?? From Time:
This phenomenon does exist. Not only do people come here to give birth for citizenship purposes, but the original sense of the term is also true: that parents of citizen children are less likely to be deported. Certainly, deportation of those parents is not prohibited, but immigration courts are more lenient with them.
What has been “debunked” is claims that the problem is much greater than it really is; statistically, any anchor babies are a blip.