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.
I gotta love this, this topic was titled wrong at ALIPAC ("non-citizens" obtaining SNAP benefits have doubled during the time Obama has been in office, not "ILLEGAL ALIENS"), copy and pasted here, and is now taken as being more truthful than the original article...
This is just at Parkland Hospital in Dallas alone and this is going on all over the country. If you would read the entire article instead of just the title of the article you'll see it is referring to anchor babies.
But 30 miles away, a Fort Worth public hospital is making those decisions, requiring patients to prove they're here legally before picking up the tab for non-emergency treatment.
Parkland is unusual for the amount of illegal alien births (and the article is dated at more than six years ago). Which model do most hospitals follow, Parkland, or the public hospital in Fort Worth? We'll address the number of illegal alien births next, but what is your source to the costs (rather than "a lot") of "Anchor Babies"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benicar
More than enough sources have been posted on this forum, and you have seen most if not all of those threads. So, why are you playing games? Unfortunately, we do not have exact numbers, because our spineless government refuses to require any agency to collect data on illegal aliens, including their births. But, according to Pew, at least 4 million babies have been born to illegal aliens within the past several years. That would certainly amount to "thousands and thousands" per year. Most are being supported by taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars annually. Not to mention, at a minimum, they will continue to be a burden for at least 18 years. That is, if they don't become lifelong welfare recipients.
The number I saw a few years ago was an estimated six million children (under the age of 18) in the United States that had at least one illegal alien parent. Note that children in illegal alien status themselves (so outside the "Anchor Baby" definition) were included in the estimate, as well as children that had an illegal alien parent and a U.S. citizen/LPR parent (less of an "Anchor" to the "Baby", where the illegal alien parent could gain sponsorship from a spouse). Among the same numbers, it was estimated that two million people were in a relationship between a U.S. citizen and an illegal alien (Legal Permanent Residents are even more likely than citizens to have an illegal alien spouse), also being possible parents).
Situations were both parents are illegal aliens are going to be less common than these other instances. "Anchor Babies" may become productive members of our society. One I am aware of is a noted homicide detective in Texas.
Parkland is unusual for the amount of illegal alien births (and the article is dated at more than six years ago). Which model do most hospitals follow, Parkland, or the public hospital in Fort Worth? We'll address the number of illegal alien births next, but what is your source to the costs (rather than "a lot") of "Anchor Babies"?
The number I saw a few years ago was an estimated six million children (under the age of 18) in the United States that had at least one illegal alien parent. Note that children in illegal alien status themselves (so outside the "Anchor Baby" definition) were included in the estimate, as well as children that had an illegal alien parent and a U.S. citizen/LPR parent (less of an "Anchor" to the "Baby", where the illegal alien parent could gain sponsorship from a spouse). Among the same numbers, it was estimated that two million people were in a relationship between a U.S. citizen and an illegal alien (Legal Permanent Residents are even more likely than citizens to have an illegal alien spouse), also being possible parents).
Situations were both parents are illegal aliens are going to be less common than these other instances. "Anchor Babies" may become productive members of our society. One I am aware of is a noted homicide detective in Texas.
The discussion wasn't about which hospitals are asking for ID or which hospitals are picking up the tab. You are attempting to minimize the number of babies born to illegal immigrant mothers and their costs to this country by deflection now. 70% of 16,000 annual births to illegal immigrant mothers is 11,200 births just in that hospital alone at $6,000 a birth and that doesn't even include the welfare benefits/education they will receive up to age 18 or any that have complications at birth. I am sure the costs of their births have risen with increased medical costs over the years also. I seriously doubt that many of these mothers are married to a U.S. citizen either. If they were married to a U.S. citizen their spouse would probably have insurance to cover those births. The article is all about the related expenses to illegal immigrant mothers giving birth on our soil. It's a stretch to think that even many of them are married to U.S. citizens.
What difference does it make that this article is 6 years old? Did births from illegal immigrant mothers suddenly stop after that year? What difference does it make if the anchor baby becomes a productive member of our society? The mother violated our immigration laws and then gave birth at our expense on our soil and the ensuing costs well into their early adulthood. Since you are always challenging any obvious facts in here that shed a negative light on illegal immigrants why don't you backup your claim that many or most anchor babies become productive members of our society? How about some stats on how many of these mothers pay back all the costs passed on to the taxpayer for giving birth on our soil and collecting welfare all these years for them? Yes, I know their anchors are U.S. citizens according to the misinterpretation of the 14th but the point is we wouldn't be bearing that expense if the mother hadn't came here illegally in the first place.
The discussion wasn't about which hospitals are asking for ID or which hospitals are picking up the tab. You are attempting to minimize the number of babies born to illegal immigrant mothers and their costs to this country by deflection now. 70% of 16,000 annual births to illegal immigrant mothers is 11,200 births just in that hospital alone at $6,000 a birth and that doesn't even include the welfare benefits/education they will receive up to age 18 or any that have complications at birth. I am sure the costs of their births have risen with increased medical costs over the years also. I seriously doubt that many of these mothers are married to a U.S. citizen either...
I am attempting to quantify an actual number. You're going to caught in assumptions that it is two illegal alien parents, with a mother in childbearing years, and giving birth every year, compared to the actual birthrate. There is probably less than 5,000 hospitals in the United States that would handle childbirth (and midwife or out-of-hospital births are becoming rare): Fast Facts on US Hospitals
Most of those are not having 11,200 births total per year, much less to two illegal alien parents. You can easily get data on the total number of births per year (narrowed to Hispanics, if you like), then estimate what percentage would be to an illegal alien mother and father. "Welfare use" and education to those classified as U.S. citizens/nationals is going to be harder to isolate, let's just focus on one particular area in dispute right now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
...What difference does it make that this article is 6 years old? Did births from illegal immigrant mothers suddenly stop after that year? What difference does it make if the anchor baby becomes a productive member of our society? The mother violated our immigration laws and then gave birth at our expense on our soil and the ensuing costs well into their early adulthood. Since you are always challenging any obvious facts in here that shed a negative light on illegal immigrants why don't you backup your claim that many or most anchor babies become productive members of our society? How about some stats on how many of these mothers pay back all the costs passed on to the taxpayer for giving birth on our soil and collecting welfare all these years for them? Yes, I know their anchors are U.S. citizens according to the misinterpretation of the 14th but the point is we wouldn't be bearing that expense if the mother hadn't came here illegally in the first place.
Don't you see a disparity when you want me to source the data, rather than provide a subjective opinion?...
...There is probably less than 5,000 hospitals in the United States that would handle childbirth (and midwife or out-of-hospital births are becoming rare): Fast Facts on US Hospitals
Most of those are not having 11,200 births total per year, much less to two illegal alien parents...
The discussion wasn't about which hospitals are asking for ID or which hospitals are picking up the tab. You are attempting to minimize the number of babies born to illegal immigrant mothers and their costs to this country by deflection now. 70% of 16,000 annual births to illegal immigrant mothers is 11,200 births just in that hospital alone at $6,000 a birth and that doesn't even include the welfare benefits/education they will receive up to age 18 or any that have complications at birth. I am sure the costs of their births have risen with increased medical costs over the years also. I seriously doubt that many of these mothers are married to a U.S. citizen either. If they were married to a U.S. citizen their spouse would probably have insurance to cover those births. The article is all about the related expenses to illegal immigrant mothers giving birth on our soil. It's a stretch to think that even many of them are married to U.S. citizens.
What difference does it make that this article is 6 years old? Did births from illegal immigrant mothers suddenly stop after that year? What difference does it make if the anchor baby becomes a productive member of our society? The mother violated our immigration laws and then gave birth at our expense on our soil and the ensuing costs well into their early adulthood. Since you are always challenging any obvious facts in here that shed a negative light on illegal immigrants why don't you backup your claim that many or most anchor babies become productive members of our society? How about some stats on how many of these mothers pay back all the costs passed on to the taxpayer for giving birth on our soil and collecting welfare all these years for them? Yes, I know their anchors are U.S. citizens according to the misinterpretation of the 14th but the point is we wouldn't be bearing that expense if the mother hadn't came here illegally in the first place.
Agreed. This data is from 2009. I've posted it before but this one is an excellent example of arrogance, ignorance and blantant admission of planned criminal intent.
Quote:
February 11, 2009 3:08 PM Illegal Immigrant Births - At Your Expense
By Byron Pitts
It was 5 a.m. and CBS News national correspondent Byron Pitts is with a woman It was 5 a.m. and CBS News national correspondent Byron Pitts is with a woman who is nine months pregnant. She's rushed to a south Texas hospital to undergo a C-section - a $4,700 medical procedure that won't cost her a dime. She qualifies for emergency MedicaidEliot is one of an estimated 300,000 children of illegal immigrants born in the United States every year, according to the Pew Hispanic Center. They're given instant citizenship because they are born on U.S. soil, which makes it easier for their parents to become U.S. citizens.
Moderator cut: quote shortened, copyright protection
Why does it never occur to these people that abstinence or birth control (aka personal responsibility) would prevent them from bringing children in this world that they can't even feed?
Put some more data out if you feel I am deflecting this information somehow...
I don't think there is anything I can say to you nor any facts I can provide for you to make you care that illegal immigrant mothers are giving birth on our soil at the taxpayer expense so we may as well end the discussion here. You seem to be dwelliing more on the numbers that are doing it rather than the fact that regardless of the numbers it is still costing our tax dollars and that wouldn't be so if they had not broken our immigration laws in the first place.
Agreed. This data is from 2009. I've posted it before but this one is an excellent example of arrogance, ignorance and blantant admission of planned criminal intent.
Why does it never occur to these people that abstinence or birth control (aka personal responsibility) would prevent them from bringing children in this world that they can't even feed?
It is possible that it is a cultural/religious thing. They also know that our government will provide for them so it is no sweat to them. The clincher is however that those government funds come from we the taxpayer and our country is already in dire straits with so much debt being owed.
It is possible that it is a cultural/religious thing. They also know that our government will provide for them so it is no sweat to them. The clincher is however that those government funds come from we the taxpayer and our country is already in dire straits with so much debt being owed.
Agreed. The fact that she and her entire family swam the Rio Grande in order to live off of prospective American benefits is simply insane. What if the baby was still borne? What would the 3 of them have done, swim back to Mexico? The greed and ignorance is just astounding.
Last edited by PurpleRain_1; 10-13-2012 at 10:23 AM..
I don't think there is anything I can say to you nor any facts I can provide for you to make you care that illegal immigrant mothers are giving birth on our soil at the taxpayer expense so we may as well end the discussion here. You seem to be dwelliing more on the numbers that are doing it rather than the fact that regardless of the numbers it is still costing our tax dollars and that wouldn't be so if they had not broken our immigration laws in the first place.
I'm not trying to gain emotional content from having you source some data, I'm trying to quantify your loose term "a lot". There has even been a number thrown to rescue you (that really matches up to the math), but I'm going to let bad karma run its course. We can compare the overall concept for "Anchor Babies" to indigent births, because the families might actual be more of that categorization.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldglory
It is possible that it is a cultural/religious thing. They also know that our government will provide for them so it is no sweat to them. The clincher is however that those government funds come from we the taxpayer and our country is already in dire straits with so much debt being owed.
Cultural and religious norms for illegal aliens would also be seen in legal immigrant and native citizen populations matching the same culture and religion. But the actual data doesn't support that there is any sort of high birthrate for illegal aliens compared to their legal counterparts. If you still want to argue that it is a "cultural/religious thing" basis, it takes the discussion outside the realm of just being about illegal immigration.
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.
