Don't need no stinkin' 14th Amendment!

Soooo tired of this Anchor-Baby myth BS that only exists in their heads
They should really start studying immigration laws before speaking in public.... Really...

Michele Bachmann isn't exactly a brainiac.

Other gems straight out of her mouth:
''Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful gas.''

''Not all cultures are equal.''

The woman is a loon (no offense meant to the bird or the coin) and almost makes Quayle look somewhat intelligent.

Please explain to me as you would a child, why anchor baby laws benefit the United States. And yes immigration law as it is allows an anchor baby to sponsor his or her siblings when he turns 18 and parents when he turns 21, and their own children are automatically naturalized as well whether they are or are not born in the United States. Thus if you can hop the border, you can potentially abuse the American hospital system for first rate care since they can not turn you away, and create an anchor in the country for your family. The term may seem insensitive, but it is very descriptive which is why it was coined.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/...n4000401.shtml

This has been abused in so many developed countries, and has thus been repealed outside of the United States.

Germany for example had the same law on the book, that two illegal aliens could hop the border, have a kid, and now the kid was a defacto German citizen with full benefits entitlement even if the parents have only been in the country for hours. It resulted in a massive influx of impoverished and poorly educated Turkish citizens and had a pronounced negative impact on German social services and the economy. And they repealed it, so now at least one of the parents has to be German or have gone through legal naturalization for the children to be considered German.

Same thing in Japan with S.Koreans abusing Japan's system, and so Japan changed their law.

So please, explain how anchor baby laws benefit the United States.
There is debate about whether or not CO2 should be considered a pollutant since it has no immediately observable harmful effects (it doesn't cause acid rain or contaminate ground water or impact air quality), and there isn't consensus on whether or not as a green house gas it is responsible for climate change considering industrial output is still dwarfed by nature. A single small volcano eruption can account for more CO2 release than a lifetime of industrial emissions. The tiny barely active volcano Kilauea, that has been burning for decades now, produces 30,000 metric tonnes of CO2 every single day for example.

And no, not all cultures are equal. Social evolution is a science, and different cultures by varying emphasis on science, education, military, economics, etc have produced widely different results. As an extreme, look at the British Empire at its height compared to the culture of some Amazonian tribes that haven't advanced past spears and primitive bows and arrows to date. That culture is unsuccessful by many measurement criteria, and would not likely ever be landing missions to Mars.

It may seem mean to say "our culture is better than yours" and certainly better is subjective, but we can say with certainty for example that say Roman culture produced more technological advances than culture of the Germanic peoples that they easily conquered and spread their own Roman culture and technology to.

Ducman - Explain to me the "Anchor-Baby" Law in the US - because really, there isn't one, if you think about it.... This is a myth - much ado said for not much, if you think about it.
Yes, a child born in US soil is a US Citizen. BUT this child need to be fed, educated, given a roof to live under, until she is 18 years old for her to be able to apply to her parents citizenship - I hope you know that
It is not because a child is born here, the parents are given the rights to stay... no no no! The parents are still illegal and can be deported anytime while this kid doesn't reach 18, and yes, it happens. Don't kid yourself.
You think that illegal immigrants don't love their children? You think they have babies just to raise them so 18 years later this kid can apply for their citizenship? Come on! Let's be reasonable here....

Actually, USCIS web site states the child has to be 21 to petition.
Still, makes the 'anchor baby' thing a complete load of bunk.

Even worst - 21.... I thought you had to be 18.
This is a load of Cr*p. Just something to scream about it....
There are other cheaper and quicker ways to get your citizenship here - you don't need to have a baby, much less wait for 21 years raising this baby, just for this.
You know, for a person who runs from having a kid like the Devil runs from the cross like Ducman, I wonder why he thinks that other people take the decision of having a child so lightly .... Like "Oh yeah, I will pop a kid across the border so in 21 years this kiddo will make me a US citizen

I have explained it thoroughly, and demonstrated how it can and is abused in the United States and other countries abroad. The illegal alien can potentially rack up thousands of dollars of medical bills scott free, the hospital cannot turn them away and American hospitals are ranked far higher than those in Mexico on average as an example, and there is little cost to the family to then return to Mexico and live life as normal or simply remain in the United States as at least 10 million other illegal immigrants do. When the child is 18, he or she now has the option to bring over his siblings, and vote to keep immigration law soft. At 21, he can now sponsor his extended family with no numerical limit. His or her children will also now be American citizens, and thus within one generation the anchor to the United States is permanent.

I have also shown how it has been repealed by other countries because of that abuse.

So please explain how anchor baby laws benefit the United States if you don't mind. How does it help me, an American citizen?

I don't care for Michele Bachmann, but I don't see where she was specific other than stating that the law needs to be changed to curb abuse, and it can be changed. Otherwise you are quoting the author of the article, and not Michele Bachmann who is quoted as saying nothing more or less than "We’ve got to end this anchor-baby program".

If it couldn't be changed, the Eighteenth Amendment would still be in place, and you and I couldn't even enjoy a nice cold beer.

Unfortunately, every year that they delay correcting the immigration loophole, it becomes more and more difficult to repeal it as the anchor babies, their decedents, and those they sponsor become a very passionate and united voting and consumer force which would represent political suicide for legislators to go against.

Fair enough, but then the complaint is not that Bachmann is trying to get anchor-baby loopholes closed, but that she is going about it in the wrong way.

I would wager that her opponents could care less about HOW she is doing it, but rather THAT she is doing it. They don't want to see immigration enforced.

Its the same thing like the debate with fences and the like. Its not that opponents don't think the fence is the best return on investment (although I agree its not), but usually boils down more to an issue of whether or not they want illegal aliens in or out.

You are wrong - The child can only petition to the immediate family - No extended family. Meaning: Parents and siblings.
As far as deportation costs, it doesn't matter if the family has a US baby or not, so the "anchor-baby" theory is irrelevant to your point. As far as medical bills, same thing - illegal immigrants, poor, and children up to 5 years old will have medical assistance, and all will have the same rights in a hospital - a hospital has the obligation to treat a person and can not refuse service - so that is also irrelevant to the "anchor-baby" issue. The key is to be a human being - I think we all fit into this category, last I checked. As far as making this country a country of immigrants - let me ask you this - where did your grandparents or your great-grand parents come from? Because America IS a country of Immigrants. Maybe you have a problem with Mexicans and prefer Irish? or some other European descent?
I do not think you thoroughly explained your point, not that I think your point makes sense. I still think and will always think this term "anchor-baby" is a a load of you know what.

Can we drop the term 'illegal aliens' please? It really is pretty derogatory.
They're illegal immigrants, they aren't from Jupiter

No, actually, I'm not wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby
You didn't read or understand what I wrote, as I said nothing of deportation costs. I referred to cost to the family, with regard to incentive to illegally cross the border in the first place. And if you don't understand how anchor baby laws along with the free healthcare act as another incentive to pay for a coyote or other efforts to violate US borders, then I don't know how to better explain the cost/reward relationship. The point is simple though, minimize the rewards (jobs/anchor laws/etc) and increase the cost (criminal penalty rather than just deportation, increased border enforcement, etc), and abuse will be naturally decreased.
America is not a country of illegal-immigrants, and every developed country has immigration laws in place and no foreigner has a right to violate those laws, nor is it unusual for a country to enforce them. America is also no longer pushing for manifest destiny, we have long since reached and filled the West coast if you hadn't realized that California exists and isn't exactly vacant. And to randomly throw out insults of racism is completely unsubstantiated. Mexico is mentioned because the overwhelming majority of illegal immigration stems from Mexico, not from China or Ireland or Canada or Germany.

Can't tell if kidding....

Ducman, maybe I am missing something from your posts -so you think a Mexican couple would decide to illegally cross the border just to have this "anchor baby" even though this baby will do nothing to change their illegal status and chance of deportation? Something doesn't add up here, I don't see how that's an incentive to cross the border....If anything it decreases the chance, because if the illegal mexican parents are caught and deported, they will be separated from their child, and that's a situation no one wants to be in...

You're probably missing the CBS article I linked to for starters.

Do you consider 300,000 illegal aliens abusing our hospitals every year a small number?

..................................

You seem unable to differentiate between immigration and illegal-immigration.

Immigration is a good thing. I have dual-citizenship myself, my mom is a foreigner who works in immigration, and I have lived in four countries outside of the United States, and may be moving to Dubai soon. That does not mean that I support breaking the laws of the host country or somehow justifying why countries should not be allowed to control their own borders.

The United States at one point was rapidly expanding to the West, as part of Manifest Destiny, and thus the borders were essentially open for all, and in fact there was a serious ad campaign if you want to call it that to attract foreigners to the country. That time is over, the country is full, and the United States has every right to dictate whether or not a foreigner can work and live in her territory and use her social services.
No, it is not beside the point.

The point is very simple, anchor baby laws are an added incentive to violate US law and cross the border illegally. Its about cost vs reward. How much will it cost me or how much do I risk to cross illegally, compared to how much I will gain if I do. A better life for your child, your grandchildren, and your retirement is a strong reward mechanism. This is a normal rational human thought process.

An incentive to immigrate illegally is not irrelevant to the topic of controlling illegal immigration, it is in fact at the very core of the discussion.

Nope I didn't miss that. I still don't see how that's an incentive to come here...compare the life expectancy of Mexico and infant mortality rates to that of the us- its not that different (75.6 to our 77) they are doing just fine, probably because they don't stuff their faced with McDonald's and Wendy's every day but thats a totally different discussion...Looks like they aren't coming here in order to take advantage of our fine hospitals...

I know how to differentiate one thing from another very very well, since I am a dual citizen myself who was never illegal.... So yes, I know the difference, otherwise I wouldn't had given a damn about it would I?
Now, I gave you the law to read - in there, if you read carefully, you will see that that child can only bring the family, but can not petition for parents who have been here for over 180 days illegally, crossed the border illegally, overstayed their visas, had deportation procedures, etc. Basically, the great majority of the people you are claiming to be "abusing" this issue that really doesn't exist.
Read the law - yep, at 18 they can petition to bring their spouses or unmarried children to the US. At 21 they can petition to bring their parents and siblings - however, if these people have violated the immigration laws... Guess what? They are out of it.
So again, what is the point of this big anchor baby boo-hoo?
Here is the law again for you to indulge yourself on it - not from wikipedia - but from USCIS. http://travel.state.gov/visa/immigra...ypes_1306.html

Again, please explain to me like you would a child how illegal-immigration and anchor baby laws benefit me as an American citizen. We have shown the factual costs, please demonstrate the benefit. Otherwise, if there are clear tangible costs, and no benefit, then it is clearly not in the best interest of the United States to continue a net negative immigration policy.
So first hand accounts from an illegal alien that crossed to have her child here that said that is specifically why she and others she knows cross the border, the fact that the documented numbers are so very high clearly demonstrating that its a matter of fact that very many do, and even a word for word quote from the CEO of a border-town hospital are not good enough for you? What kind of evidence would satisfy you?

Not so clear as all that. And there is the question of whether those here illegally are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. This is unclear enough that it has been argued once already in the Supreme Court. Those who wrote the amendment (which had nothing to do with illegal aliens at the time, but rather about the citizenship of slaves) argued against the Court's interpretation, but it has been enforced that way so far. However, the Court's decision can be reversed by the Court (it's happened before), and an amendment can be passed that would clarify it. When it comes to law, not much is really permanent.

And, technically speaking, Congress COULD pass such legislation. It would be reviewed and probably thrown out by the Court, but my guess is that there are a lot of immigration advocates who don't want to take that risk, either.

She should study alot of things before she speaks in public. Gawd.... she makes me cringe.

Illegal immigrants cross the border while not pregnant just as much( if not more) than those who are pregnant... So no, that doesn't convince me - Catholics are prolific people so I am not surprised that they justify having babies while crossing the border with getting a better life for their families, when in fact it could very well be poor planning, and no one likes to admit they had a kid at the wrong time...

Ok, you still don't get my point that "anchor-baby law" doesn't exist, and "anchor-baby" is a myth, do you? Since it doesn't exist, it doesn't benefit or doesn't hurt you, because.... well... simply it doesn't exist
As I said, read the LAW. In there you will see that the child can not petition for an illegal parent - therefore, this whole anchor-baby debacle is load.
As far as moving back to Mexico, then moving back here..... well, doesn't work that way either - the child has to prove US residency to start proceedings. He/She can not reside in Mexico. So underwater your theory goes.....
The only thing that this law gives, is the US citizen rights for the child, and the rights for her to petition her immediate family to immigrate - provided, again, these immigrants have not violated immigration laws in the past.
So, again, Bogus.
I truly looking at the numbers, can not see the difference in between immigration of pregnant and not pregnant woman, men and woman to be able to tell that these so called "anchor-babies" make a difference at all.
At the moment that you prove to me that pregnant woman immigrate more than non pregnant woman, or more than men, I will give you some points.

I will tell you in what this law makes a positive difference to me though: This law gives any child born in the US soil US citizenship, therefore, all US citizenship rights - and children, doesn't matter if red, black, green, or blue on the face, should be well fed, healthy and well educated. Because, you Ducman want it or not, they are the future generation of this country, and as well fed, well educated, they will have the best chances to provide a better future to this country. I am sorry, but I care about this, and could care less if these children, getting these health benefits are coming from legal or illegal parents - they are children, and should be taken care of - this is a good thing for ALL of us, for society - and I, my friend, am part of society.

Just to keep it in perspective... You know that Dennis Kucinich has the same effect on those on the right, right? And there are several others, such as John Edwards. The good news is that to be elected President, you have to remove the cringe factor for well over 50% of the voters.

The real danger is that the current President (in any given election) may be so unpopular that peoples' better judgment is overwhelmed by their dislike of the current guy. It's happened before, and probably will again.

But the left is pretty safe from Ms. Bachman. Her campaign is pretty much in freefall, she's not paying her staff, and the media loves to tear up any conservative for faux pas that would be ignored in a liberal (just look at the treatment of Herman Cain over a sexual discrimination suit, compared to the treatment of Bill Clinton for allegations of rape).

Please someone tell me what other countries allow a baby born on their soil to be granted citizenship when neither parent is a citizen?  Inquiring minds want to know.