Anonymous wrote:What a stupid post, OP.

A child has to turn 21 before they can petition on behalf of a noncitizen parent. Do you think Vivek’s parents were planning to go out of status and wait around 21 years before being eligible for citizenship?

Or go out of status and use their “anchor baby” to avoid deportation?

What matters here is intent.

So what you’re saying is the whole concept of “anchor baby” is a stupid MAGA talking point?

Can I get a link to the official MAGA dictionary for the definition of anchor baby? Seems we’ve got about 5 different definitions in this thread alone.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Why are you yelling? You seem unstable.

Anonymous wrote:

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 baby parents are illegals not on visa

Plus the birth tourism folks, who are here legally.

But the birth tourism folks aren’t planning to stay. They are just here so that their kid gets US citizenship, then they go back. Since they aren’t planning to stay themselves, I would not call these anchors babies.

We should end birthright citizenship though.

What a stupid post, OP.

A child has to turn 21 before they can petition on behalf of a noncitizen parent. Do you think Vivek’s parents were planning to go out of status and wait around 21 years before being eligible for citizenship?

Or go out of status and use their “anchor baby” to avoid deportation?

What matters here is intent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Having a baby in the US does not anchor one in the country absent other grounds for staying.

It can. A parent of a citizen can be sponsored when the kid turns 18, or in the meantime can apply for deferred action or cancellation of removal orders as the parent which could allow them to stay.

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.

A green card is the informal name for a permanent resident card. A H1-B visa expires.

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 baby parents are illegals not on visa

Plus the birth tourism folks, who are here legally.

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.

They are three year visas, possibly one year with two automatic renewals. Then you can get a three year renewal. After that the H1 expires. During this time many H1s apply for a green card.

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Having a baby in the US does not anchor one in the country absent other grounds for staying.

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 baby parents are illegals not on visa

"Birth tourism" is a fancy way of saying "anchor baby" and absolutely needs to be abolished - along with illegal immigrants having babies here in order to gain an American citizen/not have to leave.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/us/anchor-baby-birth-tourism.html

Highly educated immigrants here to attend universities or for employment on H-1B visas are not who we're talking about. Those are people who are huge assets to the U.S., not drains on our resources.

Anonymous wrote:Their parents were here on a visa. No one is expected to stop living when they come here ona visa. An anchor baby is when someone comes here illegally, has a baby and the relies on the baby as a way to not get deported. And you know this…

+1
The deliberately obtuse act is really tiresome. People like the OP and those agreeing with that stupidity are not serious people.

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.

Vivek’s mother wasn’t a legal immigrant. She had just come to the country when she gave birth giving Vivek automatic citizenship. Neither Vivek’s mother or father were legal immigrants when Vivek was born. Vivek’s mother because a citizen almost 20 years later. Vivek’s father chose not to become a US citizen.

Fox News

“ Two years after their marriage, Ramaswamy’s father earned his Ph.D. from the University of Cincinnati while still working at General Electric in 1985, according to details in his father's dissertation. That same year, Ramaswamy’s mother immigrated to America, and Vivek was born that August, followed by his younger brother Shankar.”

Ramaswamy’s mother came to the US from India to give birth to an anchor baby. She had a second anchor baby soon after.

Some of the arrogant Indians forget that if they were born an untouchable instead of brahmin we would have never heard of them. They need to stop coming to this country and telling us how to run it. They were born lucky and are a disgrace for not having stayed in India to fix their system.