Pew Immigration Study Undermines 'Anchor Baby' Argument

New Estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center find that the "number of children born to at least one unauthorized-immigrant parent in 2009 was 350,000, essentially the same as it was a year earlier." These children accounted for 8% of newborns in the U.S. from March 2009 to March 2010. But interestingly, only a fraction of the babies were born to parents who have recently arrived in the country -- running counter to an argument made by conservatives who want to do away with birthright citizenship.

Click to expand...

OK, so the anchor baby argument is somewhat invalid. However, that does not mitigate the fact that illegal aliens are coming to the country, and having babies, sometimes many years after arriving. Logic dictates that the babies are STILL anchor babies. Whether intended or not, the result is the same.

Ending this problem, however, is going to be tough. You can't just pass legislation disallowing anchor babies, because that runs counter to the Constitution, which defines "natural born citizen"..... Or can we? Legally, the only way to end the problem of anchor babies is going to be through a Constitutional amendment, and considering what has to happen before an amendment is passed, this problem is going to be a very tough one to crack... Or are there other solutions?

So, I would like to hear some ideas, which we at DP can then examine for Constitutionality. Let's not get emotional about this. Let's examine the law, and see what remedies are actually available.

We will begin by making an assumption that EVERYBODY at DP wants to end "anchor babies". Everybody try to come up with some ideas. We will then look at the law, as it exists at the present time, to see if any solution offered can pass Constitutional muster.

I think this will be both fun and educational for all of us. So here is where we stand - The only option on the board at this time is a Constitutional amendment. What are the other options, if any? Are any of those other options Constitutional?

Have at it, folks.

Article is here.

danarhea said:

We will begin by making an assumption that EVERYBODY at DP wants to end "anchor babies".

Click to expand...

Why? What exactly is the problem?

danarhea said:

Everybody try to come up with some ideas. We will then look at the law, as it exists at the present time, to see if any solution offered can pass Constitutional muster.

Click to expand...

I have a solution that is simple, constitutional, and plausible: Do nothing.

I like the linkage.

In my view there is no such thing as anchor babies; hence, no problem to solve. Children who want to sponsor their parents' immigration must already wait until they are 21-years-old. This idea that having a baby in this country provides an immediate solution to one's immigration status is wrong.

With regard to undocumented workers, my solution is to document them! Expand existing guest workers programs and provide a means should they choose to, to become citizens.

I'm surprised at the 350k/yr. number. I assumed that most of the illegals were young men working out of town with plans to head back home after a few years. I didn't see many that brought their wives and kids when I was in construction.

They all complained about the corruption in the Mexican government. Yet, they didn't want to move to the US and be away from their families.

So, ban the anchor baby. Those guys could care less.

Chappy said:

I like the linkage.

In my view there is no such thing as anchor babies; hence, no problem to solve. Children who want to sponsor their parents' immigration must already wait until they are 21-years-old. This idea that having a baby in this country provides an immediate solution to one's immigration status is wrong.

With regard to undocumented workers, my solution is to document them! Expand existing guest workers programs and provide a means should they choose to, to become citizens.

Click to expand...

No, anchor babies don't influence their parents' immigration standing; it simply means that taxpayers are supporting them...and their parent/s. Make the children ineligible to receive taxpayer assistance, and you'd get no argument from me about changing the law. I'd say, "Leave it alone," as well.

In the meantime, anchor babies immediately come into an 18-year annuity that supports their parent/s -- at taxpayer expense.

only 350,000? Oh, a pittance, of course.

Aside from the paltry number of stinking infants, screaming for USA brand formula, let us not forget, kiddies, their errant illegal thieving families now are able to enjoy the land of milk and honey under the umbrella of family.

If liberals were any more stupid, I imagine Depends Adult Undergarments would be a stock in which to invest my pennies.

MaggieD said:

No, anchor babies don't influence their parents' immigration standing; it simply means that taxpayers are supporting them...and their parent/s. Make the children ineligible to receive taxpayer assistance, and you'd get no argument from me about changing the law. I'd say, "Leave it alone," as well.

In the meantime, anchor babies immediately come into an 18-year annuity that supports their parent/s -- at taxpayer expense.

Click to expand...

Undocumented workers pay payroll taxes but never collect social security or unemployment compensation. They pay sales taxes.

All these claims of them depending on assistance programs, mostly related to health care, is precisely the reason they should be documented and made eligible for employer-provided health insurance.

Simple, just amend it to say that a child born in the US must have both parents there legally to be a citizen.

Chappy said:

Undocumented workers pay payroll taxes but never collect social security or unemployment compensation. They pay sales taxes.

All these claims of them depending on assistance programs, mostly related to health care, is precisely the reason they should be documented and made eligible for employer-provided health insurance.

Click to expand...

One size doesn't fit all. Some pay payroll taxes, and probably as many get paid in cash under the table. There's not any way of knowing to the best of my knowledge.

It's possible to legalize all illegal immigrants, but first you have to fight and win a civil war.

Ed Gein said:

only 350,000? Oh, a pittance, of course.

Aside from the paltry number of stinking infants, screaming for USA brand formula, let us not forget, kiddies, their errant illegal thieving families now are able to enjoy the land of milk and honey under the umbrella of family.

If liberals were any more stupid, I imagine Depends Adult Undergarments would be a stock in which to invest my pennies.

Click to expand...

Hey, my thread, my rules. Read my first post again. Expecially read this part again:

Let's not get emotional about this. Let's examine the law, and see what remedies are actually available.

Click to expand...

In English, that means no baiting and no trolling. Please observe, or don't post in this thread. Besides, what you posted made no sense at all.

I think 350k number highlights a systemic rather than an acute problem. It's been going on for so long and over such a long period of time that the problem is institutionalized and ongoing rather than having a huge growth spike. Remember that the first "path to citizenship" program began under Reagan in the late 80s and the problem has only grown since then.

That leads well into the problem of mass deportation as well. A good many of the illegals in the US today have put down roots of one type or another and have various reasons for wanting to stay.

The problem from illegals isn't limited to benefit issues though, things like artificial wage depreciation and price warping have big negative impacts on the economy.

Aside from enforcing what we already have on the books, I don't have a lot of solutions, but right now we don't know if enforcement works---because we haven't tried it yet.

danarhea said:

New Estimates from the Pew Hispanic Center find that the "number of children born to at least one unauthorized-immigrant parent in 2009 was 350,000, essentially the same as it was a year earlier." These children accounted for 8% of newborns in the U.S. from March 2009 to March 2010. But interestingly, only a fraction of the babies were born to parents who have recently arrived in the country -- running counter to an argument made by conservatives who want to do away with birthright citizenship.

Click to expand...

OK, so the anchor baby argument is somewhat invalid. However, that does not mitigate the fact that illegal aliens are coming to the country, and having babies, sometimes many years after arriving. Logic dictates that the babies are STILL anchor babies. Whether intended or not, the result is the same.

Click to expand...

I don't see that the quote renders the anchor baby argument invalid. The quote discusses "at least one unauthorized-immigrant parent..." I don't care if one parent is illegal; I care if both of them are. To me, if one of the parents is a USA citizen, born or naturalized, then the baby is a USA citizen, entitled to all the taxpayer welfare benefits allowed. I just have a problem when two people cross the border illegally, use forged/fradulent documents, have a baby, skip out on the hospital bill then head right to the nearest welfare office to get their US citizen child a real SS# to begin drawing welfare payments for said child. No other country in the world does this. None.

Ending this problem, however, is going to be tough. You can't just pass legislation disallowing anchor babies, because that runs counter to the Constitution, which defines "natural born citizen"..... Or can we? Legally, the only way to end the problem of anchor babies is going to be through a Constitutional amendment, and considering what has to happen before an amendment is passed, this problem is going to be a very tough one to crack... Or are there other solutions?

So, I would like to hear some ideas, which we at DP can then examine for Constitutionality. Let's not get emotional about this. Let's examine the law, and see what remedies are actually available.

We will begin by making an assumption that EVERYBODY at DP wants to end "anchor babies". Everybody try to come up with some ideas. We will then look at the law, as it exists at the present time, to see if any solution offered can pass Constitutional muster.

I think this will be both fun and educational for all of us. So here is where we stand - The only option on the board at this time is a Constitutional amendment. What are the other options, if any? Are any of those other options Constitutional?

Click to expand...

Realistically, I think constitutional amendment is the only option. However, there is a very thin chance that interpretation of the 14th Amendment by SCOTUS could skim the periphery of the amendment. The 14th amendment was ratified for a very limited purpose; to assure that the children of slaves would be USA citizens no matter what the country of origin of their birth parents. If SCOTUS were to uphold that limited intent for the 14th amendment, then it's possible that a legal interpretation that one or more parents of a child born in the USA must be citizens could be legally acceptable on a federal level.

Chappy said:

I like the linkage.

In my view there is no such thing as anchor babies; hence, no problem to solve. Children who want to sponsor their parents' immigration must already wait until they are 21-years-old. This idea that having a baby in this country provides an immediate solution to one's immigration status is wrong.

With regard to undocumented workers, my solution is to document them! Expand existing guest workers programs and provide a means should they choose to, to become citizens.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what we need in this economy, another 10 million people competing for a job.

danarhea said:

OK, so the anchor baby argument is somewhat invalid. However, that does not mitigate the fact that illegal aliens are coming to the country, and having babies, sometimes many years after arriving. Logic dictates that the babies are STILL anchor babies. Whether intended or not, the result is the same.

Ending this problem, however, is going to be tough. You can't just pass legislation disallowing anchor babies, because that runs counter to the Constitution, which defines "natural born citizen"..... Or can we? Legally, the only way to end the problem of anchor babies is going to be through a Constitutional amendment, and considering what has to happen before an amendment is passed, this problem is going to be a very tough one to crack... Or are there other solutions?

So, I would like to hear some ideas, which we at DP can then examine for Constitutionality. Let's not get emotional about this. Let's examine the law, and see what remedies are actually available.

We will begin by making an assumption that EVERYBODY at DP wants to end "anchor babies". Everybody try to come up with some ideas. We will then look at the law, as it exists at the present time, to see if any solution offered can pass Constitutional muster.

I think this will be both fun and educational for all of us. So here is where we stand - The only option on the board at this time is a Constitutional amendment. What are the other options, if any? Are any of those other options Constitutional?

Have at it, folks.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Just how is it that almost 10% of the births in this country are connected to illegals is "somewhat invalid?"

What is clearly needed is to change the Constitution to eliminate this problem.

3.500 is way to many making 350,000 is crazy and costly,and a real problem.

All the laws need to be enforced and those who run Sactuary Cites need to face jail time for no enforcing the laws.