One out of about every twelve newborns in the United States is an anchor baby

[Dianne]

Where did my retirement benefits go?

http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...ry-93-seconds/


This means that one anchor baby is delivered every 93 seconds, based on the 2008 census data analyzed by the Pew.

The huge number of foreign children born on U.S. soil– roughly 340,000 per year— is also an economic imposition on Americans, who pay taxes to help raise, feed, and educate those children of illegal migrants.

Eventually, those 340,000 U.S.-born foreign children can join the U.S. workforce and compete for wages against the roughly four million children of U.S. parents that enter the slow-growing U.S. economy each year.

Only 28 percent of likely U.S. voters believe that children born to illegal migrants in this country should automatically be American citizens, according to a 2011 Rasmussen Reports survey. In fact, the proposal is so unpopular that even Jeb Bush, who favors large-scale immigration, has criticized pregnant foreigners who grab citizenship for their kids by flying into the country posing as tourists. Bush described the practice as “fraud,” and asserted that, “Frankly, it’s more related to Asian people coming into our country — having children in that organized effort, taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship”

The growing industry of “birth tourism” is so large that even California’s government recently cracked down on the illegal — but rarely suppressed— trade.

The federal government currently grants automatic citizenship to all U.S.-born children of illegal migrants based upon what experts say is a flawed interpretation of the 14th amendment. This interpretation is backed by progressive political advocates and wealthy business interests, and it allows a pregnant foreigner to win citizenship — and myriad financial benefits — even when laws, legislators and voters oppose her entry into the nation.

The rewards to the mother and father are huge. The mother, for example, can collect federal welfare on behalf of the child, and the adult child – as a U.S. citizen – will eventually be able to win a green card for his or her parents, despite their prior illegal entry into the United States.

As National Review writes:

71 percent of illegal-alien headed households with children received some sort of welfare in 2009, compared with 39 percent of native-headed houses with children. Illegal immigrants generally access welfare programs through their U.S.-born children, to whom government assistance is guaranteed. Additionally, U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are entitled to American public schools, health care, and more, even though illegal-alien households rarely pay taxes.

The cost of K-12 public school alone for a U.S.-born child of illegal migrants is, at a minimum, around $160,000 (using the average cost $12,300 per pupil per year). Additionally, under universities’ system of racial preferences, anchor babies will get bonus SAT and GPA points when they apply to college. Many corporations will continue this benefits program when considering their job applications as well.

Both Senator Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
71%
and Congressman Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
77%
have introduced bills that would correct this misapplication of the 14th amendment by ensuring citizenship is only granted to a child that has at least one parent who is either a U.S. citizen or a legal permanent resident. Presidential candidate Donald Trump has also issued a plan that would restrict this appropriation of U.S. citizenship.

But the presidential candidates favored by wealthy donors, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
80%
and Jeb Bush, have both argued that the United States should continue this controversial application of the 14th amendment that allows foreign migrants to appropriate U.S. citizenship for their children.

Marco Rubio co-authored the Senate Gang of Eight bill, which won the endorsement of La Raza and would substantially increase family chain migration.

When asked by CNBC why he defends this unpopular application of the 14th amendment, Rubio explained that he supports it because U.S.-born foreign children “are people”:

“Those are human beings and ultimately they are people, we’re not just statistics, they’re humans with stories,” Rubio said.
Read More Stories About:

Big Government, 2016 Presidential Race, Immigration, Marco Rubio, Steve King, birthright citizenship, 14th Amendment, Gang of Eight bill, Sen. Vitter

[phill4paul]

Again, because I said it in another thread, if your retirement expectation is based on Social Security you have only yourself to blame. It's not the "illegals" that stole your retirement from you it is YOUR government. And YOUR SELF that believed that your government would secure you.

Average hourly wage in Mexico is $2.49. Average hourly wage in the U.S. is $24.99. That's 10 times earning capacity. If Canadians would pay me $249 an hour I'd be damned sure to make my way across the border and send money home to my family. And sock some away for retirement.

[Dianne]

Again, because I said it in another thread, if your retirement expectation is based on Social Security you have only yourself to blame. It's not the "illegals" that stole your retirement from you it is YOUR government. And YOUR SELF that believed that your government would secure you.

Average hourly wage in Mexico is $2.49. Average hourly wage in the U.S. is $24.99. That's 10 times earning capacity. If Canadians would pay me $249 an hour I'd be damned sure to make my way across the border and send money home to my family. And sock some away for retirement.

$#@!e, been a long time since I received $25.00 average hourly wage in U.S. My daughter makes $8.00 working for Jimmy John's. Can we get a job with you?

[phill4paul]

$#@!e, been a long time since I received $25.00 average hourly wage in U.S. My daughter makes $8.00 working for Jimmy John's. Can we get a job with you?

Your daughter is not an "average" wage earner. Nor is every Mexican.

I pay my Mexican worker $12 an hour cash. I usually don't work with someone but do to a busy summer had to bring on help. He fit the bill nicely. On time, hard working, pleasant demeanor. I charge $25 cash for myself (not currently unfortunately, this job I took a hit on because things were slow and quoted $15 cash, now that $25/hr jobs are opened I need to be done with this one, hence the need for help) and $15 for my worker. $3 dollars overhead to myself for time and gas to pick him up (State doesn't give illegals licenses), breakfast, lunch, drinks, etc.

[XNavyNuke]

And despite that, the rate of live births is still an anemic 1.8

XNN

[erowe1]

What bothers me is that this statistic is even knowable. My wife and I should be able to have babies without the government or the hospital knowing anything about whether we're citizens or immigrants or what.

[enhanced_deficit]

If this is confirmed news, it is going to boost Trump's poll numbers.

[puppetmaster]

And the taxpayer picks up the cost of the birth in 90% of the births.

[heavenlyboy34]

What bothers me is that this statistic is even knowable. My wife and I should be able to have babies without the government or the hospital knowing anything about whether we're citizens or immigrants or what.

How can they give you and your kids SSN's (and benies like SS or disability eventually) if they don't have records of y'all and lots of your personal info? :'(

[erowe1]

How can they give you and your kids SSN's (and benies like SS or disability eventually) if they don't have records of y'all and lots of your personal info? :'(

They shouldn't.

[LibertyEagle]

They shouldn't.

Are you saying they do? Did you sign your kids up for social security numbers?

[Zippyjuan]

The growing industry of “birth tourism” is so large that even California’s government recently cracked down on the illegal — but rarely suppressed— trade.

Birth Tourism is rich Chinese women coming (mostly to California) where they pay thousands (including their hospital bills), stay at hotels, buy goods, and after about four weeks go back home. Having a US Passport for their kids gives them more freedoms in their country.

http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/08/news...birth-tourism/

Why Chinese moms want American babies

For many pregnant women, a pre-birth checklist might look like this: assemble the crib, buy extra bibs, pack essentials for the hospital. But for a growing number of expectant Chinese mothers, the list also includes buying a plane ticket to the U.S.

Felicia He, 27, shelled out tens of thousands of dollars and planned meticulously before hopping on a plane to give birth in California.

"I started getting ready for the trip around the end of my first trimester," she recalled. "I asked my friends who have given birth before in the U.S. for a doctor recommendation; then I found a place to stay in the area for a few months, and purchased my plane ticket."

Pregnant Chinese moms are flocking stateside to give birth, lured by rules that grant American citizenship to anyone born on U.S. soil. A booming birth tourism industry has sprouted from coast to coast to cater to growing interest -- in 2012, about 10,000 Chinese women gave birth in the U.S., more than double the 4,200 in 2008, according to Chinese state media.

Many of the families want an American kid because a foreign passport could be the family's ticket out of China if they grow weary of pollution or food safety scares. President Xi Jinping's widespread anti-corruption campaign has given rich Chinese yet another reason to be on edge.

"If things become economically or politically uncertain in one's country of origin, the children have a place to come to," said Leti Volpp, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. The children can "then sponsor their parents when they turn 21."

The desire to leave China is especially pronounced among the wealthy. Almost two-thirds of Chinese with more than 10 million yuan ($1.6 million) in the bank have emigrated, or are planning to, according to a Hurun report released last year.

For He, who gave birth last year, a U.S. passport for her baby means access to better education opportunities. Foreign status opens the door to exclusive international schools in Beijing, where she lives with her husband, and the option for the child to study abroad for high school and college.

For others, like Miao, giving birth in the U.S. can also be a way to skirt China's one-child policy. Although the rules have been relaxed slightly, not every couple is eligible to have multiple children.

Miao estimates she spent nearly $30,000 to have her second child in the U.S. Like He, she plans to send her daughter to study in the U.S., perhaps as early as elementary school.

To make the process easier, Miao enlisted an agency that helped her find a short-term rental in a Los Angeles neighborhood popular with pregnant Chinese.

A number of such agencies exist, with websites and ads touting elaborate birth packages at "maternity hotels" that include luxury accommodation, meals, chauffeurs, doctor appointments and more. The websites even explain how to secure a passport for a newborn and where to apply for a visa.

While many mothers give birth in the Lower 48, U.S. territories like the Northern Mariana Islands are also popular. The islands are close to China, and there is a visa waiver program for Chinese tourists.

Birth tourism has exploded so quickly there that its congressman, Rep. Gregorio Sablan, has repeatedly pressed the U.S. government to help implement controls, such as pre-screening measures, to curb the influx of pregnant moms.
Both the Miao and He families have mulled plans to emigrate to America, drawn by the lower cost of living. Housing is more affordable, especially in comparison to Beijing, where prices continue to climb.

There is one catch, though. Getting a U.S. passport for a baby means the child will eventually be responsible for U.S. taxes.

"I haven't thought that far yet," He said. "And anyway, we have to wait until my baby is 18, right?"

[Zippyjuan]

Side question- if one parent is a legal citizen and the other parent is not, is the baby an "anchor baby" since one parent WAS a citizen? (estimates of "anchor babies" include these types of families). Does that not make the child a citizen anyways and not an "anchor baby"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/t...ation-defense/

The myth of the ‘anchor baby’ deportation defense

Donald Trump said it; Jeb Bush said it, too.

Frankly, a whole range of people have used the term "anchor baby" this week in public discussions about Trump's immigration-related policy ideas -- ideas that include an end to the nearly 150-year-old practice of granting citizenship to anyone born in the United States.

It's the former, known as "birthright citizenship," which is delineated in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. And as all sorts of public figures have discussed the future of the 14th Amendment this week, the more colloquial -- many say pejorative -- term "anchor baby" has come up over and over again.

But the anchor baby, while potent politically, is a largely mythical idea.

Here's the basic concept: People, namely women, come to the United States illegally and give birth to children, generally for the specific purpose of bolstering legal attempts of the child's parents remain in the United States or even become citizens themselves.

Looser definitions suggest "anchor babies" can simply be intended to help illegal-immigrant parents access taxpayer-financed public education and/or social services through their citizen children -- another political hot button, to be sure. (Even here, the law limits those benefits to the children themselves.)

But usually the debate has been about the residency of the parents, who after all are supposed to be using the child as their "anchor."

This is the definition that has little legal underpinning. For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant.

The only thing that a so-called anchor baby can do to assist either of their undocumented parents involves such a long game that it's not a practical immigration strategy, said Greg Chen, an immigration law expert and director of The American Immigration Lawyers Association, a trade group that also advocates for immigrant-friendly reforms. That long game is this: If and when a U.S. citizen reaches the age of 21, he or she can then apply for a parent to obtain a visa and green card and eventually enter the United States legally.

In order to apply for such an option, the parent of a so-called anchor baby would need to do all of the following.

Wait for his or her child to reach the age of 21.
Leave the United States.
Return to their home country.
Have their child begin the lengthy process of applying for a family reunification immigration request.
Clear consular interviews and a U.S. State Department background check. (One or both would very likely provide evidence that said parent, at some point, lived in the United States illegally -- long enough for that "anchor baby" to be conceived or born. And despite widespread belief to the contrary, there is indeed a penalty for that.)
If a person has lived in the United States unlawfully for a period of more than 180 days but less than one year, there is an automatic three-year bar on that person ever reentering the United States -- and that's before any wait time for a visa. So that's a minimum of 21 years for the child to mature, plus the three-year wait.

More at link.

[RonPaulMall]

In order to apply for such an option, the parent of a so-called anchor baby would need to do all of the following.

Wait for his or her child to reach the age of 21.
Leave the United States.
Return to their home country.
Have their child begin the lengthy process of applying for a family reunification immigration request.
Clear consular interviews and a U.S. State Department background check. (One or both would very likely provide evidence that said parent, at some point, lived in the United States illegally -- long enough for that "anchor baby" to be conceived or born. And despite widespread belief to the contrary, there is indeed a penalty for that.)
If a person has lived in the United States unlawfully for a period of more than 180 days but less than one year, there is an automatic three-year bar on that person ever reentering the United States -- and that's before any wait time for a visa. So that's a minimum of 21 years for the child to mature, plus the three-year wait.

The sad thing is, a lot of these Washington elites are so clueless and out of touch that they genuinely believe bull$#@! like this.

[Acala]

Again, because I said it in another thread, if your retirement expectation is based on Social Security you have only yourself to blame. It's not the "illegals" that stole your retirement from you it is YOUR government. And YOUR SELF that believed that your government would secure you.

Exactly. Social Security was ALWAYS just another tax and spend program. There was NEVER any contractual right to the beneifts. It was NEVER a real pension plan. The government could eliminate the benefits tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. Although the government certainly allowed people to think they had an account that belonged to them, when push came to shove, they denied any contractual right. This was confirmed by the SCOTUS way back in the 60s.

But there is a generation of seniors who don't want to admit that they are clamoring for welfare benefits just like everyone else. "I earned those benefits, sonny!" Um, no you didn't. You paid taxes just like everyone else and that tax money went in one door and out the other just like every other tax dollar. The only thing you earned was the right to not be thrown in jail for failing to pay the SS tax. Congratulations.

[Acala]

And the taxpayer picks up the cost of the birth in 90% of the births.

So if the taxpayer doesn't want to do that, then the taxpayer should stop doing it. We offer free goods and services and then get cranky because people take us up on the offer. Who is to blame in that scenario?

[Acala]

And the taxpayer picks up the cost of the birth in 90% of the births.

double post. Sorry.

[DamianTV]

... soon to be followed by 1 in 10, then 1 in 8, 1 in 5, and finally two anchor babies for every birth to citizens. Americans are systematically being replaced.

[Zippyjuan]

... soon to be followed by 1 in 10, then 1 in 8, 1 in 5, and finally two anchor babies for every birth to citizens. Americans are systematically being replaced.

Only if there is more than one anchor baby born for each citizen birth.

[heavenlyboy34]

Exactly. Social Security was ALWAYS just another tax and spend program. There was NEVER any contractual right to the beneifts. It was NEVER a real pension plan. The government could eliminate the benefits tomorrow with the stroke of a pen. Although the government certainly allowed people to think they had an account that belonged to them, when push came to shove, they denied any contractual right. This was confirmed by the SCOTUS way back in the 60s.

But there is a generation of seniors who don't want to admit that they are clamoring for welfare benefits just like everyone else. "I earned those benefits, sonny!" Um, no you didn't. You paid taxes just like everyone else and that tax money went in one door and out the other just like every other tax dollar. The only thing you earned was the right to not be thrown in jail for failing to pay the SS tax. Congratulations.

Some of those people are members of this very forum! I've seen them!

[RonPaulGeorge&Ringo]

So if the taxpayer doesn't want to do that, then the taxpayer should stop doing it.

Every time taxpayers have had a chance to vote on it, they vote against it.

Who is to blame in that scenario?

Corrupt Communist-oriented federal judges.

Hope this helps.

[euphemia]

$#@!e, been a long time since I received $25.00 average hourly wage in U.S.

I have never earned that. Even tossing in the value of benefits, I am nowhere close.

[RonPaulMall]

So if the taxpayer doesn't want to do that, then the taxpayer should stop doing it. We offer free goods and services and then get cranky because people take us up on the offer. Who is to blame in that scenario?

The government elites are to blame, and this is why Trump is polling so high. He's the first candidate to openly take them on and challenge the New World Order mass migration plan.

[phill4paul]

The government elites are to blame, and this is why Trump is polling so high. He's the first candidate to openly take them on and challenge the New World Order mass migration plan.

No. You are. Man the $#@! up.

[phill4paul]

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Unless your a dirty filthy $#@!in' Mexican. We already $#@!ed up by letting Chinks into this country. And those Gott-damned Micks.

[Zippyjuan]

The government elites are to blame, and this is why Trump is polling so high. He's the first candidate to openly take them on and challenge the New World Order mass migration plan.

This mass migration?

[AmericanSpartan]

Again, because I said it in another thread, if your retirement expectation is based on Social Security you have only yourself to blame. It's not the "illegals" that stole your retirement from you it is YOUR government. And YOUR SELF that believed that your government would secure you.

Average hourly wage in Mexico is $2.49. Average hourly wage in the U.S. is $24.99. That's 10 times earning capacity. If Canadians would pay me $249 an hour I'd be damned sure to make my way across the border and send money home to my family. And sock some away for retirement.

Well sorry for not stand up to the federal government, you want do lead the charge?

[AmericanSpartan]

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Unless your a dirty filthy $#@!in' Mexican. We already $#@!ed up by letting Chinks into this country. And those Gott-damned Micks.

So a poem written in 1886 by a socialist should dictate immigration/preservation of Liberty?

We value liberty more then the lies of immigration. You want invite the world to your house? Great!, you are going to deal with the fallout.

[erowe1]

So a poem written in 1886 by a socialist should dictate immigration/preservation of Liberty?

We value liberty more then the lies of immigration. You want invite the world to your house? Great!, you are going to deal with the fallout.

But you don't value liberty. Not one bit.

[AmericanSpartan]

But you don't value liberty. Not one bit.

No I do, so much so I am willing to protect it from subversion by people taking self defeating positions, stances and views when it comes to culture and immigration.

Also the "stormfront" comment is really low class. But hey when in doubt scream "racism" and hope the opposition shuts up really does show you for what you are.