Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Really, you should be irritated with yourself, since you don't understand the immigration process as evidenced with your constant incorrect usage.
It's apparent that many people don't understand the meaning of the word disparagingly or offensive, even though I've posted links and a definition. If they did, this thread probably wouldn't exist, the story itself would not be controversial. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink, so goes the saying.
So now you are claiming the fact that her parents were not citizens, therefore she is an anchor baby. So was Wong Kim Ark an anchor baby?
Have you not been listening? I've been saying that since post one.
Quote:
They were on a sponsored work visa - During the term of the H1B visa the employee can also apply for permanent residency. This is called "Dual Intent", and is a privilege some other U.S. visas do not enjoy. A sponsored visa doesn't require what you claim, must show an allegiance to your homeland and a guarantee that you will return. You confuse it with a visitor visa.
H1B visa is a non-immigrant visa. Michelle Malkin's parents came on it, with the intent to eventually immigrate (of course). That doesn't make them citizens, and makes Michelle Malkin an anchor baby. (See above).
Quote:
Really, you should be irritated with yourself, since you don't understand the immigration process as evidenced with your constant incorrect usage.
Incorrect usage? In your world, may be. In the United States of America, in my world, work permit is a non-immigrant visa.
"The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa in the United States under the under Immigration and Nationality Act, section 101(a)(15)(H). It allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. If a foreign worker in H-1B status quits or is dismissed from the sponsoring employer, the worker must either apply for and be granted a change of status to another non-immigrant status, find another employer (subject to application for adjustment of status and/or change of visa), or leave the United States."
Of course, they have the option of dropping an anchor in the mean time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
Why would she be a hypocrite? Her parent's actions were not her actions.
I didn't say they were. I'm simply applying her language on her. It is a great and only way to put hypocrites in their rightful place.
Have you not been listening? I've been saying that since post one.
H1B visa is a non-immigrant visa. Michelle Malkin's parents came on it, with the intent to eventually immigrate (of course). That doesn't make them citizens, and makes Michelle Malkin an anchor baby. (See above).
Incorrect usage? In your world, may be. In the United States of America, in my world, work permit is a non-immigrant visa.
"The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa in the United States under the under Immigration and Nationality Act, section 101(a)(15)(H). It allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. If a foreign worker in H-1B status quits or is dismissed from the sponsoring employer, the worker must either apply for and be granted a change of status to another non-immigrant status, find another employer (subject to application for adjustment of status and/or change of visa), or leave the United States."
Of course, they have the option of dropping an anchor in the mean time.
I didn't say they were. I'm simply applying her language on her. It is a great and only way to put hypocrites in their rightful place.
I see, since you failed to answer my question about WKA, therefore you believe WKA was an anchor baby, right? (Your answer to this question will further define your ideals)
You really should thoroughly read wiki's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_vi...al_immigration) info for your claim of the H1B. Your definition doesn't change my facts, sorry. Your definition only discusses if the worker is fired or quits, your link also proves my point where in it it says the following:
Quote:
H-1B and legal immigration
Even though the H-1B visa is a non-immigrant visa, it is one of the few visa categories recognized as dual intent, meaning an H-1B holder can have legal immigration intent (apply for and obtain the green card) while still a holder of the visa. In the past the employment-based green card process used to take only a few years, less than the duration of the H-1B visa itself.
try looking up and following the instructions of the I-485 form from USCIS.
My world, oh brother, I gave you the definition directly from th H1B site and you say it's "my world" , I say it's the real world. Since you like wiki, use this link for understanding Adjustment of Status (Change of Status):Permanent residence (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote:
Adjustment of Status (AOS) – Adjustment of status is submitted to USCIS via form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status.
Prove your assertions then that the phrase was coined to include non-immigrant parents that are here legally then. I'll be waiting.
My usage of "non-immigrant" here is without a connotation of being either on non-immigrant visa or an illegal alien. The U.S. citizen baby born to any non-immigrant parent(s) has the potential to "anchor" them to the United States. In a broad definition, the baby might not even be born in the United States.
Imagine a K-1 fiancée (defined as female in this instance by the spelling) entering the United States, being/becoming pregnant by a U.S. citizen (maybe not even the intended), but not marrying and leaving the country. In 21 years (and with proof of paternity), the mother could be sponsored to immigrate by her child. Broader definition yet: The mother gets pregnant from a U.S. citizen father abroad, and never enters the United States until after being sponsored.
The definition is derived from the concept of an anchor, that a parent would have the potential (whether used or not, whether intended or not) provided (whether there are also other paths available or not) to gain eventual U.S. citizenship from their child...
My usage of "non-immigrant" here is without a connotation of being either on non-immigrant visa or an illegal alien. The U.S. citizen baby born to any non-immigrant parent(s) has the potential to "anchor" them to the United States. In a broad definition, the baby might not even be born in the United States.
Imagine a K-1 fiancée (defined as female in this instance by the spelling) entering the United States, being/becoming pregnant by a U.S. citizen (maybe not even the intended), but not marrying and leaving the country. In 21 years (and with proof of paternity), the mother could be sponsored to immigrate by her child. Broader definition yet: The mother gets pregnant from a U.S. citizen father abroad, and never enters the United States until after being sponsored.
The definition is derived from the concept of an anchor, that a parent would have the potential (whether used or not, whether intended or not) provided (whether there are also other paths available or not) to gain eventual U.S. citizenship from their child...
This has nothing to do with calling Malkin an anchor baby as according to the analogy she doesn't fit. Your key word is "potential", for which nobody is denying.
Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 12-13-2011 at 02:38 PM..
Have you not been listening? I've been saying that since post one.
H1B visa is a non-immigrant visa. Michelle Malkin's parents came on it, with the intent to eventually immigrate (of course). That doesn't make them citizens, and makes Michelle Malkin an anchor baby. (See above).
Incorrect usage? In your world, may be. In the United States of America, in my world, work permit is a non-immigrant visa.
"The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa in the United States under the under Immigration and Nationality Act, section 101(a)(15)(H). It allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. If a foreign worker in H-1B status quits or is dismissed from the sponsoring employer, the worker must either apply for and be granted a change of status to another non-immigrant status, find another employer (subject to application for adjustment of status and/or change of visa), or leave the United States."
Of course, they have the option of dropping an anchor in the mean time.
I didn't say they were. I'm simply applying her language on her. It is a great and only way to put hypocrites in their rightful place.
Again, what makes her a hypocrite? I provided you with an analogy and you didn't address it, why?
My usage of "non-immigrant" here is without a connotation of being either on non-immigrant visa or an illegal alien. The U.S. citizen baby born to any non-immigrant parent(s) has the potential to "anchor" them to the United States. In a broad definition, the baby might not even be born in the United States.
Imagine a K-1 fiancée (defined as female in this instance by the spelling) entering the United States, being/becoming pregnant by a U.S. citizen (maybe not even the intended), but not marrying and leaving the country. In 21 years (and with proof of paternity), the mother could be sponsored to immigrate by her child. Broader definition yet: The mother gets pregnant from a U.S. citizen father abroad, and never enters the United States until after being sponsored.
The definition is derived from the concept of an anchor, that a parent would have the potential (whether used or not, whether intended or not) provided (whether there are also other paths available or not) to gain eventual U.S. citizenship from their child...
Again, the phrase was "coined" to fit illegally alien parents only, not anyone else regardless of the possible motive or outcome of other scenarios.
Again, what makes her a hypocrite? I provided you with an analogy and you didn't address it, why?
Oh, I would gladly address your analogy since it defines what goes on in a hypocritical world... where, a stance is taken that the baby be called an "anchor baby" because you hate what the baby's parent did. And then you take a stance that the baby be spared and isolated, because you "care" for that baby. So tell me again, if anchor baby is not a derogatory term, why do you hate it when applied to Michelle Malkin? And if it is a derogatory term, why do you want to apply it to a baby who isn't at fault? You see now how hypocrisy applies?
Thanks for bringing up a fantastic analogy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicagonut
Again, the phrase was "coined" to fit illegally alien parents only, not anyone else regardless of the possible motive or outcome of other scenarios.
No. The phrase was coined for children of refugees from South East Asia, which included legal and illegal immigrants seeking refuge. The word ultimately entails a simple explanation: Non-citizen people having a child that is guaranteed citizenship at birth.
Last edited by EinsteinsGhost; 12-13-2011 at 02:48 PM..
I see, since you failed to answer my question about WKA, therefore you believe WKA was an anchor baby, right? (Your answer to this question will further define your ideals)
There is no "further" to my ideals. Unlike yours, mine are pretty consistent. In case of WKA, one could consider him an anchor baby but at the same time recognize that his parents couldn't have gained citizenship due to rampant stupidity going on in this country at the time.
Quote:
You really should thoroughly read wiki's (H-1B visa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) info for your claim of the H1B. Your definition doesn't change my facts, sorry. Your definition only discusses if the worker is fired or quits, your link also proves my point where in it it says the following: try looking up and following the instructions of the I-485 form from USCIS.
My world, oh brother, I gave you the definition directly from th H1B site and you say it's "my world" , I say it's the real world. Since you like wiki, use this link for understanding Adjustment of Status (Change of Status):Permanent residence (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWhich will lead you to here USCIS - I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status, read the instructions.
I wasn't aware that I-485 granted citizenship (or even made citizenship a guarantee). How in my world did you get that idea from?
Oh, I would gladly address your analogy since it defines what goes on in a hypocritical world... where, a stance is taken that the baby be called an "anchor baby" because you hate what the baby's parent did. And then you take a stance that the baby be spared and isolated, because you "care" for that baby. So tell me again, if anchor baby is not a derogatory term, why do you hate it when applied to Michelle Malkin? And if it is a derogatory term, why do you want to apply it to a baby who isn't at fault? You see now how hypocrisy applies?
Thanks for bringing up a fantastic analogy.
No. The phrase was coined for children of refugees from South East Asia, which included legal and illegal immigrants seeking refuge. The word ultimately entails a simple explanation: Non-citizen people having a child that is guaranteed citizenship at birth.
I hate it when applied to Malkin because she wasn't an anchor baby for the umpteenth time. You are also irritated that she is a staunch anti-illegal immigrationist which you think makes her a hypocrite but her parents weren't even here illegally. Even if they had been, why does lawbreaking by one's parents go hand in hand with your implication that she should be an illegal alien supporter based on that? Thus my bank robber analogy.
Last edited by chicagonut; 12-13-2011 at 02:57 PM..
Reason: spelling
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(Your answer to this question will further define your ideals)
, I say it's the real world.