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.
Where is Marco Rubio's birth certificate? Why won't he clear up these questions? Who forged his documents? I don't care what the evidence says, I'm convinced he's from Kenya.
The same goes for Nancy "Earth Mother Gaia" Pelosi.
When a foreigner sneaks into the US, enters into our country illegally, and gives birth to a baby in our hospitals, for the expressed purpose of creating an instant US citizen, in order to circumvent our immigration laws, that is an act of creating an anchor baby. When a person is allowed to immigrate into the US legally, then they are here legally, and their immigration status is legal.
Why is the obvious so hard for some people to grasp?
What about entering legally, and doing that? As in work permit or tourist visa, or even while being here legally just undocumented? See, what you deem simple is because y'all don't really put any thought into the complexities.
What about entering legally, and doing that? As in work permit or tourist visa, or even while being here legally just undocumented? See, what you deem simple is because y'all don't really put any thought into the complexities.
It's not complex. If a woman was not intending to become an American citizen by following our immigrations laws, and instead chooses to use an anchor baby to bypass our immigration laws, its an anchor baby. I don't care if she was just visiting the country on a temporary visa, or entered the country illegally, or overstayed her visa.
If the woman is going thru the legal process of becoming a US citizen, like Rubio's mother did, and while going thru the LEGAL immigration process gives birth to a child, then the child is not an anchor baby.
To break it down for you, it's not an anchor baby if the woman becomes a US citizen without resorting to using her child as a tool to bypass normal immigration procedure to become a US citizen.
It's not complex. If a woman was not intending to become an American citizen by following our immigrations laws, and instead chooses to use an anchor baby to bypass our immigration laws, its an anchor baby. If the woman is going thru the legal process of becoming a US citizen, like Rubio's mother did, and while going thru the LEGAL immigration process and gives birth to a child, the child is not an anchor baby.
To break it down for you, it's not an anchor baby if the woman becomes a US citizen without resorting to using her child as a tool to bypass normal immigration procedure to become a US citizen.
And what if she is, while being an undocumented immigrant (who may or may not be legally here)? And what about a woman who is here legally (work permit, business visa, tourist visa)?
Or, better yet, let us apply your excuse for Rubio's mother to any other person who wants to come here and work on legal status. Would you approve or whine?
And what if she is, while being an undocumented immigrant (who may or may not be legally here)? And what about a woman who is here legally (work permit, business visa, tourist visa)?
Or, better yet, let us apply your excuse for Rubio's mother to any other person who wants to come here and work on legal status. Would you approve or whine?
I can't help it if you cannot read. I already spelled it all out for you, reread my post you responded to. If a woman is is intentionally using her baby as a tool to gain citizenship, to bypass the proper procedures, then its and anchor baby.
Our laws were never intended to allow instant citizenship for any woman who pops out a kid on our shores, and these prove how asinine this all has become.
I can't help it if you cannot read. I already spelled it all out for you, reread my post you responded to. If a woman is is intentionally using her baby as a tool to gain citizenship, to bypass the proper procedures, then its and anchor baby.
How do you propose differentiating such dishonest intention from "honest" intentions, for seeking legal refuge?
He is not an anchor baby because his parents entered the US legally.
However, had Rubio's parent been from any other country, they likely would have been considered illegal. Alas, we have certainly made sure that particular group that has been granted special rights.
Should be interesting for some on here to look up who made sure this particular group had and still has special rights.
His parents had papers; They were here legally. They left their homeland legally.
No, there is no difference if the immigrant is legal or illegal when it comes to anchor babies. A legal tourist of another nation could have a baby in US, and that baby would be called "anchor baby".
That baby would be called an anchor baby by an prejudiced ignoramus, not by educated people who know the so called definition of this perjorative term.
That baby would be called an anchor baby by an prejudiced ignoramus, not by educated people who know the so called definition of this perjorative term.
I posted the definition early on in this thread so the ignoramouses amoung us would stop whining that he is not one, th fact of the matter is he is one. Now that that is clarified, who cares.
That baby would be called an anchor baby by an prejudiced ignoramus, not by educated people who know the so called definition of this perjorative term.
Being educated can be synonymous with being brain-washed.
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.