What I can't understand about the "anchor babies" rhetoric.

[CTyankee]

I get the argument about SCOTUS opinions subsequent to the 14th Amendment that seems to imply that babies born in the U.S. to foreign nationals are not covered in the 14th Amendment, although I have some questions as to their relative worth.

But that aside, here's my question: if we are concerned that we have a future generation of educated, tax paying citizens, and we aren't producing enough children from our own citizens (to support seniors on Social Security, for instance), then how better to do it than with the so-called "anchor babies"? So if these kids have public schooling and are allowed the benefits of other U.S. citizens, then we have increased our future workforce.

How have countries historically increased their populations? Pro-natalist policies range from the benign (rich benefits to parents a la Sweden and France) to the horrific (Nazi Germany and Rumania). I don't think conquest/slavery is a great option. What's left?

Maybe the prejudice against the Hispanic undocumented worker just overwhelms reason and logic. But what IS Lindsay Graham so afraid of?

Help me out here... :shrug:

[Exultant Democracy]

1. Did you stop to think that your demographic argument is just too logical?

[CTyankee]

14. I've heard some otherwise logical people get pretty illogical on this issue.

I think they must suspend certain faculties that they normally possess in this area...

[krispos42]

2. The anchor babies aren't WASPs.

They're hispanic/american indian catholics. Obviously unacceptable as American citizens, doncha know?

[pinboy3niner]

9. And the majority are likely to grow up to be Democrats

Think of it as the GOP's early dem voter suppression program...

[CTyankee]

11. It can't be the Catholicism. The Irish and the Italians significantly increased

Catholics in this country and many of them want to keep the Hispanics out...

[IntravenousDemilo]

3. I think Mitt Romney is an anchor baby.

His father George was born in Mexico to American parents who had freely given up their US citizenship and moved back to the United States, probably illegally, during the Mexican revolution. George grew up and married Lenore, a girl from Utah, and they had four anchor babies, of which Mitt was the fourth.

[Angry Dragon]

4. My take on this question

There are some whites that feel that they are the superior race and are seeing their percentage of population decreasing every year.
They are afraid that the non-white races will unite and take over this country and then the whites will be the minority and the minorities will then treat the minority whites the same way that the whites have treated the minorities over the years.

It may be their thought that if they let the corporations run this country (most are run by rich white men) that the white race will be protected even if they fall into being a minority.

You mention education. If you educate the minorities then you have people that can think and that gives them power. Can not have that if you want to stay in power.

[RandomThoughts]

6. I don't need to be in power.

Never have, and am white, and defend minorities in America all the time.

If they were to become a majority, and any of them were to treat a minority wrong, then I would defend that minority.

It makes sense.

Because making a decision on race, is making a decision on nothing. And leads to bad results.


There are some awesome thoughts in some films, but in many of them there are also race blockers to keep people that think that way from seeing the better thoughts.

One of the worst evils is to get people to fight over something that means nothing.

[Karenina]

10. "THEIR" visible presence is an 'existential threat' to "US."

We've seen this movie over and over and over... Here comes another one, just like the other one.

[The Northerner]

5. I've read that many complain that illegal immigrant parents are trying to get welfare

by having children in the US (such as food stamps, medicaid, public housing, etc.) and also using their US-born children to get easier access US citizenship instead of applying for it like legal immigrants.

Oh, and they also complain that illegal-immigrant parents contribute to bankrupting/financially straining US hospitals by getting free service and never paying or something.

Even my fundie aunt says the same things above!

I'm pretty sure there are other reasons as well but lots of the fundies keep telling me the above.

[CTyankee]

12. The smarter conservatives know that illegal aliens cannot get citizenship

via their babies being born here and often don't raise that argument at all. And only the child gets the benefits, the parents, being undocumented, cannot.

Illegal aliens pay rent and part of that rent covers property taxes, which support local services.

But the child grows up and is educated in our schools and often go into the services if not into the general workforce. Providing a segment of our population that provides a new tax base helps augment the productive citizenry. A lifetime of tax paying is worth the investment, IMO...

[The Northerner]

13. That's one way to counter their argument BUT they still like to argue that illegal immigrants are

bankrupting/financially straining US hospitals by getting free service and never paying.

And then they're still likely to argue that illegal-immigrant parents are trying have as many children as possible so that they use their children to get as much child welfare benefits and then use it for themselves.

Oh, let's not forget that the fundies claim that educating the children of illegal immigrants is not their responsibility but the responsibilities of the illegal immigrants' homelands and that only legal tax-paying citizens deserve US govt services.

They have lots of crazy arguments!

[CTyankee]

15. I'd be interested to know what percentage of our Armed Services

is made up of "anchor babies" who have come of age. Or become tax payers in the workforce.

The reason we get these babies in the first place is that the illegal parents have come here for one major reason: to work, to earn a living doing whatever it takes. And they do pay taxes thru property taxes in their rents and sales taxes. In my city, if you have a car registered here you pay personal property taxes or they garnish your wages.

[phantom power]

7. This might help:

The enemies list is long: racial minorities (especially non-compliant ones), immigrants, foreigners in general, feminists, liberals, poor people---yes, especially poor people, who haven’t known their place in like 100 years at least---men who aren’t completely wrapped up in non-stop demonstrations of proof they’re Real Men, gay people, college professors, activists who try to improve people’s lives, honestly you could go on.

They view politics as a battle for dominance. Policy should be aimed at making it clear that their tribe is better than everyone else. Policy wonks are loathsome not just because they hit college professor and activist notes (both being “accusations” aimed at Obama), but because they tend to believe that government exists for all people and policy should be crafted around that. Culture warriors believe government should be crafted around making it clear that they’re better than everyone else. Policies that enrich them but also enrich people on the enemies list need to be shunned. They are a classic example of folks who’ll live in a mud hut if that means their neighborhood lives in a shit hole. Which is why the ones that find Christianity boring and never darken a church door still associate happily with Christian right wingers they often secretly think are stupid. The Bible thumpers are a little slow, in their eyes, but they’re still members of the tribe and deserve support. They have the right enemies, after all. People who are members of the hated groups but make it clear they support the goals of wingnut dominance are allowed in the club, with conditional membership.

When they talk about the “liberal elite”, they mean white class traitors who find their tribalism stupid. Since you can’t tell white people apart just by looking at us, they invest a lot into singling out tribal markers of the liberal elite and shunning them. Which is why you have some wingnut showing up in my threads about my CSA here and bragging about how he eats McDonald’s all the time. The point is to make it clear that he would rather have a heart attack than associate with the class and race traitors who have what he considers feminized habits. But as Rick Perlstein has documented, this anger and hatred is spiked through with jealousy. Feelings of insecurity just cause more freaking out, which is why you get the “our women are hotter!!!!!” nonsense. It’s kind of the natural reaction when you’ve cast your enemies as people who lives lives of sensual pleasure and good health, lives that you shun but are hard not to want sometimes for the obvious reasons. So, defensive childish reactions.*

Trying to parse out the meanings of different culture warrior issues is missing the point. I dispute the notion that opposing gay rights or reproductive rights is substantively or philosophically different than opposing the rights of Muslims to build community centers or the inclusion of black people into the social contract or anger about immigration or getting absolutely furious every time they think about the fact that someone who is visibly incapable of being a member of their tribe. The supposedly deep moral values that lead to freaking about sexual rights are just the same old bigotry.

http://pandagon.net/index.php/site/comments/its_all_the_same_culture_war

[pampango]

8. "They" are not "us". "Their" presence cannot be beneficial to "us" in any way. Don't believe studies

that show the contrary.

""Anchor baby" is a term used by immigration reductionists in the United States to describe a child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens. It is generally used as a derogatory reference..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby

The right wing has got us all using a term that they popularized. The fact is that "anchor babies" give the parents (assuming they are here illegally) no rights other than that they can return home and wait for the child to turn 21 so that he/she can sponsor them as legal immigrants (a process that itself takes 10 to 20 years depending on what country you're coming from). "Anchor babies" do not give citizenship or legal residency to their illegal immigrant parents.

But it is a wonderfully emotive term that republicans use (as they always do) to fire up their base and distract people from the real problems that we have.