Talk:Anchor baby

Conspicuous by omission in this article is the reason for many people's use of the term "anchor baby" which, in the minds of some editors, would seem to be a simplistic equation of "ferners = bad hombres + babies = anchor babies". What's been omitted is the intent of the mothers. This is where the editor(s) responsible for this page seem to be either intellectually dishonest, or have lost the plot. Either way, it's made them completely miss what may indeed be valid objections to what is perceived as a stratagem: that of foreign nationals entering the US illegally (or legally as a temporary resident, such as under a work permit), and then giving birth, specifically so that their child will be a US citizen, thus ensuring that it will have certain benefits and, in some cases, will enable the parent to return to the US as a legal resident, instead of applying for legal residence on their own. The Wall Street Journal ran a story in 2015 about this issue, describing a situation where tens of thousands of women from China alone, were entering the US every year for the sole purpose of giving birth to automatic US citizens. Some salient bits of the article: ''"Federal agents Tuesday executed search warrants at several Southern California sites they say are connected to three multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses that enabled thousands of Chinese women to travel here and return home with infants born as U.S. citizens. The investigations are likely to culminate in the biggest federal criminal case ever against the booming “anchor baby” industry, according to U.S. authorities. The search warrants cite suspected visa fraud, tax evasion and harboring illegal immigrants, among other charges.  Agents seized records from apartments where, they said, Chinese women on tourist visas stay before and after delivering babies, as well as from residences of U.S.-based individuals who they allege run three separate anchor-baby operations in Los Angeles, Orange and San Bernardino counties...One of the companies, Los Angeles-based Star Baby Care Center says on its starbabycare.com website that it has “served” more than 8,000 women since 1999. Another company, USA Happy Baby Inc., promises to refund women if U.S. officials at the airport send them back home, according to the affidavit...Long associated with Mexican immigrants who came across the border with the sole purpose of giving birth, the desire to bear an American child has spawned an industry that caters to wealthy foreigners. Chinese nationals, eager to gain a foothold in the U.S., have become the main clients, authorities say, often paying brokers $50,000, excluding medical fees. Babies born on American soil are automatically U.S. citizens. The so-called anchor baby is thus eligible for education, health and other benefits, and when 21 years old, can sponsor family members to legally immigrate to the U.S. There are no official figures on the number of babies born to mothers who visit the U.S. to give birth. The Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington group that supports a crackdown on the practice, estimates 40,000 so-called 'birth tourists' annually."'' Whoever penned this wiki seems to be trying to reduce any and all objections to the aforementioned practice, to "OMG-raysizm", leaving any rational discourse out of the article. Here's a test to see how "rational" an editor is being about the issue (rather than just hewing to the PC line): do they believe that any number of citizens of any nations should have the right, when say, one week from their delivery date, to travel to the US and upon arrival, tell authorities "I'm here to give birth so that my child will benefit from your generous legal and financial benefits, at your taxpayers' expense", and that US authorities and taxpayers should not be free to criticize this, much less to do anything about it?  I have no doubt that literally millions of foreign nationals would be happy to take advantage of that option. Rational people recognize legitimate problems with such a scenario, and to recognize that as it scales up or down, the problems don't necessarily disappear. Rational people don't make appeal-to-emotions fallacies and expect them to trump basic good sense or the rule of law.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism
 * http://www.wsj.com/articles/us-agents-raid-alleged-maternity-tourism-anchor-baby-businesses-catering-to-chinese-1425404456

Ockham (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article seems to be in agreement with the law so I don't understand that last statement at all. 90.218.153.16 (talk) 14:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please segment your text. That block is basically unreadable. Thanks! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)