Nonsense. Our economy might be strained, but our civilization is substantially the same as that south of the border.
It happens all the time. I’ve seen countless cases. The parents can either take the kid with, or leave him/her in the U.S. (perhaps with other relatives).
Eva Luna, U.S. Immigration Paralegal (and former Immigration Court interpreter/clerk)
P.S. Seems like about 25% of people deported have U.S. citizen children. That’s a lot.
Yeah, we already have a system in place to prevent baby-anchoring. We just deport the whole family. What we don’t do, as I understand it, is deny citizenship to those who have been born and grew to adulthood here. But thanks for your suggestion.
The way Saint Cad is defining “anchor baby” isn’t the prevailing use. I’ve only heard the term, and the article I linked to backs this up, used to refer to sponsorship of naturalization by adult, citizen children of illegal immigrants, not a bar to deportation of illegal immigrant parents with minor, citizen children.
It’s hardly an academic definition. It’s a pejorative term, so its usage isn’t exactly rigorous.
:dubious:
You can’t actually believe this.
So once our society has collapsed, people will stop coming here? That’s your solution?
Birth rates to existing citizens are quite different than talking about letting in hundreds of millions of foreigners all at once.
I refuse to allow you to come into my house and take my stuff. Am I not treating you with respect and equality?
This is insane. Can you name any successful civilization in the history of the world that tried such a policy?
The United States?
Most of them, including the richer and better-remembered ones, before the rise of modern nationalism?
There is no such thing as anchor babies, parents of legal US citizens get deported all the time and having a baby offers them absolutely no legal standing.
:rolleyes: Look, ya wanna talk “civilizations”? Here’s Samuel P. Huntington’s “Clash of Civilizations” theory. The part of it that conspicuously makes no sense is his positing a “Western” civilization that includes Western Europe, the U.S. and Canada, Australia and New Zealand – but not Latin America, that is a separate “Latin American” civilization. Now, by Og, how can there be such thing as a “civilization” that includes Britain, and its colonial progeny; and includes Spain and Portugal; but does not include their colonial progeny, which speak Western European languages and are predominated by a Western European religion?!
Now, if, OTOH, you would posit the existence of a completely unique “American” civilization . . . that would be completely, incredibly, utterly dumbass, just as are any and all forms of American exceptionalism.
What, unlimited immigration? Pretty much all of them, and all the unsuccessful (defined as now-dead) ones too – immigration controls (as distinct from invasion-defenses) are a relatively new thing in human history.
How does this background check work? If someone was convicted in some backwater shithole state or county (or whatever) in Mexico, are those records sufficiently computerized to show up when ICE does the check?
Eliminating birthright citizenship shouldn’t have to make a “permanent underclass”, because non-citizen children of immigrants should be quite welcome to apply for citizenship once they turn 18.
You’re perfectly within your rights to refuse to allow someone to come into your house and take your stuff.
However, you are treating people as inferiors and with disrespect when you refuse to allow them into your country based solely on where they were born.
In what way is breaking into your house and stealing stuff like moving to a new country? Because I’m not seeing the parallels at all. In one case you’re a criminal, in the other you’re just trying to live somewhere different from where you did before.
Here’s a question to you, assuming you’re American: If Chicago refused to allow you to live there, and in fact prosecuted you as a criminal if you stepped foot within the city, would you consider that to be respectful treatment? Would you think Chicagoans considered you their political equal? What if it were all of Illinois? What if it were that neighborhood down the block from where you currently live? What if it were simply illegal for you to move at all? Still perfectly respectable treatment?
No. The freedom of migration across this planet should be considered a basic human right on par with speech and self-defense. It should be considered an economic boon on par with free trade. And our country (along with, as far as I can tell, all the other developed nations) is backward and barbaric for thinking otherwise.
There is literally no upside to our misguided and xenophobic restrictions on immigration.
I don’t understand the claim that Latin America is a different civilization either. Is it like Hugo Chávez’s “Indioamérica” idea, implying that America north of the Río Grande is less (indigenous) American? Or is the “Western Civilization” somehow really just NATO, and the Organization of American States less important in treaty-organization-based civilization theory?
They can apply for it . . . But in the present political climate, what makes think they can be sure of getting it?
I think it has something to do with the apparent fact that everything south of the Rio Grande is rather less, you know, white.
If the illegal-immigration pressure were coming from Canada instead of Mexico – all economic factors held constant – then the Minutemen would not exist. You know it, I know it, Lou Dobbs knows it, and Debaser knows it.
Some of the central Asian despotisms were pretty harsh on migrants in the early modern period, I think. Isn’t there a story about a khagan who was encouraged not to let outsiders leave his domain alive? (Though the tellers of that story did leave alive, so how reliable is that?) But that sort of thing doesn’t help develop a high profile for trade and influence.
“Leave” and “enter” are two different things.