Why does the right wing suddenly love anchor babies?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA here. Children of legal immigrants aren't anchor babies. I dont know why this is so complicated- we aren't against immigrants. We are against open borders with no security. This isnt rocket science and you're unable to comprehend this because you're too devoted to the theory that the right is motivated by racism.

How do you feel about wealthy women on tourist visas from developed countries who come to the US to give birth? Are those anchor babies? Are they worthy of citizenship?

There have been many posts on here where people are complaining about that very scenario: pregnant women coming here on a tourist visa and then giving birth to give their children American citizenship. Now, all of a sudden, MAGA are only pointing out the illegal ones who do this.

ITA with OP. MAGA are twisting themselves in a pretzel, again, due to the many hypocrisies of Trumplandia.

In fact, the Trump administration was trying to keep pregnant women from getting tourist visas:
https://apnews.com/article/health-donald-trump-ap-top-news-international-news-politics-d4c42c5311ba8a6661855cadd12f0fed

Good.
“consular officers would ask the question only if they had reason to believe the applicant is pregnant and likely or planning to give birth in the U.S.“

So now we're all on the same page that children born of people here legally on visas are in fact anchor babies, and that Vivek is therefore an anchor baby?

Vivek was an anchor baby, Kash Patel was an anchor baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA here. Children of legal immigrants aren't anchor babies. I dont know why this is so complicated- we aren't against immigrants. We are against open borders with no security. This isnt rocket science and you're unable to comprehend this because you're too devoted to the theory that the right is motivated by racism.

LOL! Tell that to Stephen Miller.

Maga is too stupid to understand what Miller is going to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA here. Children of legal immigrants aren't anchor babies. I dont know why this is so complicated- we aren't against immigrants. We are against open borders with no security. This isnt rocket science and you're unable to comprehend this because you're too devoted to the theory that the right is motivated by racism.

How do you feel about wealthy women on tourist visas from developed countries who come to the US to give birth? Are those anchor babies? Are they worthy of citizenship?

There have been many posts on here where people are complaining about that very scenario: pregnant women coming here on a tourist visa and then giving birth to give their children American citizenship. Now, all of a sudden, MAGA are only pointing out the illegal ones who do this.

ITA with OP. MAGA are twisting themselves in a pretzel, again, due to the many hypocrisies of Trumplandia.

In fact, the Trump administration was trying to keep pregnant women from getting tourist visas:
https://apnews.com/article/health-donald-trump-ap-top-news-international-news-politics-d4c42c5311ba8a6661855cadd12f0fed

Good.
“consular officers would ask the question only if they had reason to believe the applicant is pregnant and likely or planning to give birth in the U.S.“

So now we're all on the same page that children born of people here legally on visas are in fact anchor babies, and that Vivek is therefore an anchor baby?

Vivek was an anchor baby, Kash Patel was an anchor baby.

DP here and PP is too dumb to comprehend that your kid is an anchor baby if you are here illegally with no visa or expired visa. Vivek is not an anchor baby if his parents were here legally when they gave birth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids born here when parents live here legally would also get visas or green cards anyway if they didn’t get citizenship. That’s what happens in every other country. After a couple years they would then be eligible for citizenship. I’m one of the people who had a baby here while on green card and I would have been fine with getting the kids citizenship later rather than immediately at birth. It just saves the country administrative costs to do it at birth. Kids born here when the parents are not living here legally are a completely different situation. Even worse is when they try to use those kids as an excuse to not be deported themselves.

This whole thread is dumb and certainly not the gotcha that some people think it is.

Having a Green Card is not the same as been here on a visa.

Why not? I had the legal right to live here but wasn’t a citizen. I’d consider green cards in the same category as H1-B for the purposes of having a child in the country. Your life is in the US but you haven’t (yet) got citizenship. Most people on a long term work visa intend to stay long term.

H1-B is not a long term visa.

It’s a long term professional visa. It gives you the right to bring your spouse to the country with you. It’s not a 2 month visa to pick produce in the fields then go home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids born here when parents live here legally would also get visas or green cards anyway if they didn’t get citizenship. That’s what happens in every other country. After a couple years they would then be eligible for citizenship. I’m one of the people who had a baby here while on green card and I would have been fine with getting the kids citizenship later rather than immediately at birth. It just saves the country administrative costs to do it at birth. Kids born here when the parents are not living here legally are a completely different situation. Even worse is when they try to use those kids as an excuse to not be deported themselves.

This whole thread is dumb and certainly not the gotcha that some people think it is.

Having a Green Card is not the same as been here on a visa.

Why not? I had the legal right to live here but wasn’t a citizen. I’d consider green cards in the same category as H1-B for the purposes of having a child in the country. Your life is in the US but you haven’t (yet) got citizenship. Most people on a long term work visa intend to stay long term.

H1-B is not a long term visa.

It’s a long term professional visa. It gives you the right to bring your spouse to the country with you. It’s not a 2 month visa to pick produce in the fields then go home.

Put another way, there’s no actual expectation that you will be returning home on a specific date. And you don’t need to show a return ticket to get entry to the US with those visas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids born here when parents live here legally would also get visas or green cards anyway if they didn’t get citizenship. That’s what happens in every other country. After a couple years they would then be eligible for citizenship. I’m one of the people who had a baby here while on green card and I would have been fine with getting the kids citizenship later rather than immediately at birth. It just saves the country administrative costs to do it at birth. Kids born here when the parents are not living here legally are a completely different situation. Even worse is when they try to use those kids as an excuse to not be deported themselves.

This whole thread is dumb and certainly not the gotcha that some people think it is.

Having a Green Card is not the same as been here on a visa.

Why not? I had the legal right to live here but wasn’t a citizen. I’d consider green cards in the same category as H1-B for the purposes of having a child in the country. Your life is in the US but you haven’t (yet) got citizenship. Most people on a long term work visa intend to stay long term.

H1-B is not a long term visa.

It’s a long term professional visa. It gives you the right to bring your spouse to the country with you. It’s not a 2 month visa to pick produce in the fields then go home.

Put another way, there’s no actual expectation that you will be returning home on a specific date. And you don’t need to show a return ticket to get entry to the US with those visas.

Yes, there is an expiration date. An H1-B is good for 6 years. It can be extended, but it definitely has an expiration date.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA here. Children of legal immigrants aren't anchor babies. I dont know why this is so complicated- we aren't against immigrants. We are against open borders with no security. This isnt rocket science and you're unable to comprehend this because you're too devoted to the theory that the right is motivated by racism.

How do you feel about wealthy women on tourist visas from developed countries who come to the US to give birth? Are those anchor babies? Are they worthy of citizenship?

There have been many posts on here where people are complaining about that very scenario: pregnant women coming here on a tourist visa and then giving birth to give their children American citizenship. Now, all of a sudden, MAGA are only pointing out the illegal ones who do this.

ITA with OP. MAGA are twisting themselves in a pretzel, again, due to the many hypocrisies of Trumplandia.

In fact, the Trump administration was trying to keep pregnant women from getting tourist visas:
https://apnews.com/article/health-donald-trump-ap-top-news-international-news-politics-d4c42c5311ba8a6661855cadd12f0fed

Good.
“consular officers would ask the question only if they had reason to believe the applicant is pregnant and likely or planning to give birth in the U.S.“

So now we're all on the same page that children born of people here legally on visas are in fact anchor babies, and that Vivek is therefore an anchor baby?

Vivek was an anchor baby, Kash Patel was an anchor baby.

I bet MAGAS do not believe anchor babies should be eligible to serve in high Federal jobs.

[Anonymous]

The answer to this and every question like it is that the GOP has no stances, no morals, no ideology except power and money.

They will do or say anything to gain more of it, regardless of whether is is consistent or makes any logical sense whatsoever. They don't actually care about immigration, or the economy, or farmers, or anything else as we have seen time and time again when Dems offer them everything they want they turn it down so they can campaign on things being broken. They know their base is so stupid or so selfish they will buy any justification no matter how ridiculous.

Stop wasting your time looking for rhyme or reason in the GOP, the answer is ALWAYS because this is what they believe will get them more money and power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Vivek Ramaswamy is an anchor baby. He was born in the US when his parents were here on visa.
Kash Patel is an anchor baby. He was born in the US when his parents were here on visa.

The right wing used to be up in arms about people wedging their foot in the door by having babies in the US, yet they now suddenly don't have a problem with it any more and in fact want to put anchor babies in charge of major American institutions and major areas of policy.

Can anyone explain, or is this just more thread-the-needle hypocrisy by the right? Or is it just random Trump stuff and the right wing is just going along with it no matter what, because Trump?

Make it make sense.

Anchor babies usually refer to people who were born to parents who were not here legally when they were born.
If your parents lied about being pregnant for their visitor's visa, they were not here legally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids born here when parents live here legally would also get visas or green cards anyway if they didn’t get citizenship. That’s what happens in every other country. After a couple years they would then be eligible for citizenship. I’m one of the people who had a baby here while on green card and I would have been fine with getting the kids citizenship later rather than immediately at birth. It just saves the country administrative costs to do it at birth. Kids born here when the parents are not living here legally are a completely different situation. Even worse is when they try to use those kids as an excuse to not be deported themselves.

This whole thread is dumb and certainly not the gotcha that some people think it is.

Having a Green Card is not the same as been here on a visa.

Why not? I had the legal right to live here but wasn’t a citizen. I’d consider green cards in the same category as H1-B for the purposes of having a child in the country. Your life is in the US but you haven’t (yet) got citizenship. Most people on a long term work visa intend to stay long term.

H1-B is not a long term visa.

It’s a long term professional visa. It gives you the right to bring your spouse to the country with you. It’s not a 2 month visa to pick produce in the fields then go home.

Put another way, there’s no actual expectation that you will be returning home on a specific date. And you don’t need to show a return ticket to get entry to the US with those visas.

+1 Why does it matter when the visa expires? If you have a baby here on an H1 or H2 visa, your baby is a US citizen.

MAGA twisting themselves into a pretzel again.

I recall there were lots of MAGA posters on here before claiming that only children of US citizens or permanent residents should be allowed to have citizenship, and that children of visa holders should not be granted citizenship.

And now that we find that members of Trump's inner circle are "anchor babies", now it's "we only meant for certain types of visas". Um.. okay...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vivek Ramaswamy is an anchor baby. He was born in the US when his parents were here on visa.
Kash Patel is an anchor baby. He was born in the US when his parents were here on visa.

The right wing used to be up in arms about people wedging their foot in the door by having babies in the US, yet they now suddenly don't have a problem with it any more and in fact want to put anchor babies in charge of major American institutions and major areas of policy.

Can anyone explain, or is this just more thread-the-needle hypocrisy by the right? Or is it just random Trump stuff and the right wing is just going along with it no matter what, because Trump?

Make it make sense.

Anchor babies usually refer to people who were born to parents who were not here legally when they were born.
If your parents lied about being pregnant for their visitor's visa, they were not here legally.

There is no question about pregnancy for a tourist visa.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA here. Children of legal immigrants aren't anchor babies. I dont know why this is so complicated- we aren't against immigrants. We are against open borders with no security. This isnt rocket science and you're unable to comprehend this because you're too devoted to the theory that the right is motivated by racism.

How do you feel about wealthy women on tourist visas from developed countries who come to the US to give birth? Are those anchor babies? Are they worthy of citizenship?

There have been many posts on here where people are complaining about that very scenario: pregnant women coming here on a tourist visa and then giving birth to give their children American citizenship. Now, all of a sudden, MAGA are only pointing out the illegal ones who do this.

ITA with OP. MAGA are twisting themselves in a pretzel, again, due to the many hypocrisies of Trumplandia.

In fact, the Trump administration was trying to keep pregnant women from getting tourist visas:
https://apnews.com/article/health-donald-trump-ap-top-news-international-news-politics-d4c42c5311ba8a6661855cadd12f0fed

Good.
“consular officers would ask the question only if they had reason to believe the applicant is pregnant and likely or planning to give birth in the U.S.“

So now we're all on the same page that children born of people here legally on visas are in fact anchor babies, and that Vivek is therefore an anchor baby?

Vivek was an anchor baby, Kash Patel was an anchor baby.

DP here and PP is too dumb to comprehend that your kid is an anchor baby if you are here illegally with no visa or expired visa. Vivek is not an anchor baby if his parents were here legally when they gave birth

NOPE and WRONG. YOU are the one who is too stupid to understand the very concept of "ANCHOR."

His parents were only here on a temporary basis. The anchor is having a kid to get a permanent footing in the US. "Anchor baby" doesn't just apply if you are here illegally or on an expired visa. The whole point is getting your foot in the door by having a kid here. That is the anchor. They had no anchor by merely being in the country on a temporary basis and NOT having a kid.

DO YOU GET IT NOW?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids born here when parents live here legally would also get visas or green cards anyway if they didn’t get citizenship. That’s what happens in every other country. After a couple years they would then be eligible for citizenship. I’m one of the people who had a baby here while on green card and I would have been fine with getting the kids citizenship later rather than immediately at birth. It just saves the country administrative costs to do it at birth. Kids born here when the parents are not living here legally are a completely different situation. Even worse is when they try to use those kids as an excuse to not be deported themselves.

This whole thread is dumb and certainly not the gotcha that some people think it is.

Having a Green Card is not the same as been here on a visa.

Why not? I had the legal right to live here but wasn’t a citizen. I’d consider green cards in the same category as H1-B for the purposes of having a child in the country. Your life is in the US but you haven’t (yet) got citizenship. Most people on a long term work visa intend to stay long term.

H1-B is not a long term visa.

It’s a long term professional visa. It gives you the right to bring your spouse to the country with you. It’s not a 2 month visa to pick produce in the fields then go home.

Put another way, there’s no actual expectation that you will be returning home on a specific date. And you don’t need to show a return ticket to get entry to the US with those visas.

Yes, there is an expiration date. An H1-B is good for 6 years. It can be extended, but it definitely has an expiration date.

They should also be conditioned on maintaining employment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Kids born here when parents live here legally would also get visas or green cards anyway if they didn’t get citizenship. That’s what happens in every other country. After a couple years they would then be eligible for citizenship. I’m one of the people who had a baby here while on green card and I would have been fine with getting the kids citizenship later rather than immediately at birth. It just saves the country administrative costs to do it at birth. Kids born here when the parents are not living here legally are a completely different situation. Even worse is when they try to use those kids as an excuse to not be deported themselves.

This whole thread is dumb and certainly not the gotcha that some people think it is.

Having a Green Card is not the same as been here on a visa.

Why not? I had the legal right to live here but wasn’t a citizen. I’d consider green cards in the same category as H1-B for the purposes of having a child in the country. Your life is in the US but you haven’t (yet) got citizenship. Most people on a long term work visa intend to stay long term.

H1-B is not a long term visa.

It’s a long term professional visa. It gives you the right to bring your spouse to the country with you. It’s not a 2 month visa to pick produce in the fields then go home.

You can be on it for a maximum of 6 years. Student visas and J visas also allow you to bring your spouse and family. It’s silly to equate it with a green card.

[Anonymous]

Vivek’s mother was not living in the US. Her husband brought her over in time to give birth. Vivek’s father wasn’t a US citizen and still isn’t. He’s not an immigrant. He’s nothing.

A lot of Russians and Asians come here to give birth allowing their children to have dual citizenship.

All MAGA know is what Trump tells them and most are twisted lies.