It's about sheer NUMBERS, not just illegality (unemployment, bias, Mexicans)

[PurpleRain_1]

$6 Billion a Year for Mexican “Anchor Babies?”

However, even this figure could be low. The Federation for Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates there are between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. These numbers are based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1,000) and official estimates of the size of the illegal alien population–between 8.7 and 11 million.
However, the Bear Stearns investment firm and others have concluded that the actual number of illegal aliens in the United States could be as high as 20 million. When using the higher estimate of 20 million illegal immigrants and FAIR’s 33 births per 1,000, this would roughly double FAIR’s estimate to approximately 574,000 to 726,000 anchor babies born in the U.S. each year.

$6 Billion a Year for Mexican “Anchor Babies?”

This article is from 2007. For the pro illegals who are in denial, you have to agree that the sheer numbers of births of illegal aliens in this country are a major negative for the US and her taxpayers.

[IBMMuseum]

Originally Posted by PurpleRain_1

$6 Billion a Year for Mexican “Anchor Babies?”

$6 Billion a Year for Mexican “Anchor Babies?”

This article is from 2007. For the pro illegals who are in denial, you have to agree that the sheer numbers of births of illegal aliens in this country are a major negative for the US and her taxpayers.

First reasoning failure/mistitled source is that not all of those "Anchor Babies" are from Mexican National parents. I tend not to believe FAIR because they attribute all of the operational costs of the Coast Guard and National Guard to keeping illegal aliens out of the United States. How are the births of U.S. citizen future taxpayers a "major negative" for the United States?

[IBMMuseum]

Originally Posted by malamute

Like I said -- those with the extremely high birthrates are simply crossing over the border to have their kids here where the rewards for having children they can't afford are great.

Why stay in Mexico where responsibility and self-control is required if one wishes to get ahead in life? Come to the USA if you are a loser. You won't be allowed to fail here.

How else do you explain the huge increase in "hispanics" throughout the USA? And in some places the rate of increase is 400% in just 10 years.

How come you are mixing the birthrates of Mexico and the United States? If a baby is born there, it is marked in a Mexico birthrate. A baby born here is marked for the United States birthrate.

Really, there is data out there for the United States categorizing the ethnic make-up and mother's age in our birthrate. The burden of proof is on you to why you allege numbers that just don't bear up to the data. Whatever point are you trying to make by providing misleading information?

My household alone went to a 400% increase in Hispanics in the last ten years, all through legal immigration. In a topic that is titled that it isn't about illegal immigration anymore, but ALL immigration, and apparently ALL of the Hispanic birthrate, whether it is U.S. citizens, legal immigrants, whatever, that is fair game for discussion here. I'm just asking that you show the actually data supporting your premise.

[tinman01]

Lets be reasonable. Regardless of nation of origin people of lower incomes who lack education tend to account for more births and more children in a family than educated higher income families. USA or mexico its the same. Why is this even being argued?

[chicagonut]

Originally Posted by IBMMuseum

First reasoning failure/mistitled source is that not all of those "Anchor Babies" are from Mexican National parents. I tend not to believe FAIR because they attribute all of the operational costs of the Coast Guard and National Guard to keeping illegal aliens out of the United States. How are the births of U.S. citizen future taxpayers a "major negative" for the United States?

I think it would be fair to say that most of these anchor babies are from Mexican or other Latino illegals since those two groups represent 80% of the illegal aliens in this country. Future taxpayers? In the meantime who do you think picks up the tab for their birthings and all the other taxpayer benefits they are entitled to until age 18? I prefer to look at them as future competitors for jobs.

[PurpleRain_1]

Originally Posted by IBMMuseum

First reasoning failure/mistitled source is that not all of those "Anchor Babies" are from Mexican National parents. I tend not to believe FAIR because they attribute all of the operational costs of the Coast Guard and National Guard to keeping illegal aliens out of the United States. How are the births of U.S. citizen future taxpayers a "major negative" for the United States?

No where in the article nor in my comments did anyone state that all of those anchor babies are descendants of mexican parents.

Due to your obvious support of illegal immigration, be it FAIR or any other reputable source you will never agree with their research or statistical data.

Funny thing is you have yet to back up any of your objections and false accusations that you perpetually post with any contrasting statistical data, reputable or otherwise. I wonder why . . . . .

[IBMMuseum]

Originally Posted by PurpleRain_1

No where in the article nor in my comments did anyone state that all of those anchor babies are descendants of mexican parents.

Due to your obvious support of illegal immigration, be it FAIR or any other reputable source you will never agree with their research or statistical data.

Funny thing is you have yet to back up any of your objections and false accusations that you perpetually post with any contrasting statistical data, reputable or otherwise. I wonder why . . . . .

FAIR is not a reputable source. All of the operation costs of the Coast Guard and National Guard can't be attached to illegal immigration. You, and whomever titled the article you linked here ("$6 Billion a Year for Mexican "Anchor Babies?") also need to read a little better:

Tomasa Mendez's illegal immigrant parents are Guatemalan...

Of the family, only she is a U.S. citizen "Anchor Baby", the other two children (as of 2007) were brought from Guatemala. Who knows where the family is currently, almost five years after the original news article. For an update (of June 2007), look here.

A little looking, a little reading, would really do wonders for knowing what to believe...

[IBMMuseum]

Originally Posted by chicagonut

I think it would be fair to say that most of these anchor babies are from Mexican or other Latino illegals since those two groups represent 80% of the illegal aliens in this country. Future taxpayers? In the meantime who do you think picks up the tab for their birthings and all the other taxpayer benefits they are entitled to until age 18? I prefer to look at them as future competitors for jobs.

So why is there even the notion to attach a nationality or ethnic group of the parents of an "Anchor Baby"? Are the non-Hispanic origin "Anchor Babies" easier to support or not quite deserving of the same concern? You can talk majorities all you want, it just has me wondering why someone attaches it at all.

Future competitors? Are you basing someone doing a job as an adult to where their parents came from? Again, there seems to be some unnatural binding when it is the ethnicity of the person being defined.

[libertylover7]

Originally Posted by malamute

Wrong -- actually the people who choose to remain in Mexico and become Mexico's growing middle class are NOT having babies irresponsibly. THOSE people tend to finish school, get some job skills ard are limiting family size to what they can afford. They are not the group that's pouring over the border to the USA.

We are getting the underclasses of Mexico. We are getting that subset with the extremely high birth rates, the irresponsible types who never finished school and start having children at very young ages. That is the whole reason they come here, they can't support their children in their own country where the cost of living is very low, so they come here where they won't have to pay their hospital bills but will be rewarded with food stamps, government housing and much much more for their high birth rates.

All one has to do is look at the extreme population increase rates throughout the USA of "hispanics". Obviously this is not the result of American-hispanics gulping down fertility pills. American hispanics would not be much different from other Americans. Yet -- there are towns that are experiencing a 400% ppulation rate increase in hispanics. Towns that never had hispanics 20 years ago -- and it's not because American citizen hispanics are packing up and relocating en masse to these places.

Hispanic fertility rates between 18 and 19 year old females are about 15% above that of non-hispanic blacks. Between 15 and 17 years old hispanic females are about 30% above non-hispanic blacks. Both groups are decreasing strongly.

The rational finding is that US poor have relatively high birtth rates...2.5 times non-hispanic whites. But close to each other. I would suspect in 20 years or less the hispanics will drop well below the blacks.

In the great American way the new immigrant group will pass the blacks by leaving them as the prime component of the poor.

[chicagonut]

Originally Posted by IBMMuseum

So why is there even the notion to attach a nationality or ethnic group of the parents of an "Anchor Baby"? Are the non-Hispanic origin "Anchor Babies" easier to support or not quite deserving of the same concern? You can talk majorities all you want, it just has me wondering why someone attaches it at all.

Future competitors? Are you basing someone doing a job as an adult to where their parents came from? Again, there seems to be some unnatural binding when it is the ethnicity of the person being defined.

Geez, how many times does it have to be pointed out that 80% of illegal aliens are of Mexican/Latino extraction before you and others in here start understanding why that ethnic group is more focused on? Yet you still wonder? "All" anchor babies with very few exceptions become our tax burden from their birthing to 18 years old. Now do you feel better?

Where did I say that only Mexican anchor babies become competitors for jobs in this country when they reach working age? "All" anchor babies will be future competors for jobs in our country. Now do you feel better or are you "still wondering"?