I've noticed some people complaining about "anchor babies." My question to you is : Would you rather spend your tax money on people who have been on welfare for 3 generations ? Which one is a better deal ?
2006-08-18 06:45:18 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
The ones who belong here. We can't get rid of them. We don't like them, but we certainly don't want to add to the problem.
2006-08-18 06:53:23 · answer #1 · answered by DAR 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
I am not surprised at this question coming from a person who thinks Secretary Rice is a "sell out", It is that mentality that keeps black people from reaching their potential, A black woman as Secretary of State and you cant be happy?..wow...Anyway, Your question is very biased when you try to force people into a belief that people on welfare are there for "3 generations", as a result of your bias your question has lost a notable amount of credibility. that having been said, I would not want a person who's sole intention was to use her child as a tool for her own gain(much like the woman who had the anchor baby does). It is a completely irresponsible act of a mother to do such a thing. It is selfish and devious.
2006-08-18 08:51:26 · answer #2 · answered by joeandhisguitar 6 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Regardless of when welfare starts its seems to run for generations... So I say hold off paying their welfare until they are independent enough from their mothers to recross the border and reclaim citizenship ... Send their parents back over the border , don't break up the families let the anchor babies reenter at eighteen (Legal age in US). Imagine the billions tax payers will save!!!!!!!
2006-08-18 07:16:18 · answer #3 · answered by bereal1 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
whilst in comparison with who. notwithstanding if a individual is of a similar opinion, what does that teach. all and sundry is announcing illegals are utilising up the expenses of scientific care, welfare and the expenses of offering colleges. All we hear is generalizations and no specifics.I pay taxes. My taxes have not long previous up as a results of fact of unlawful extraterrestrial beings.the two substantial taxes are earnings and components. There at the instant are not any specific taxes for welfare or scientific care. i ought to start itemizing issues only white human beings do. the main significant subject white human beings did the previous century became into initiate international conflict 2.The conflict became into began with the aid of blond, blue eyed white skinned human beings.
2016-10-02 06:15:18 · answer #4 · answered by panther 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am one of "those people" that believes - "get me once shame on you, get me twice shame on me". I don't like spending my tax dollars on anchor babies or generational welfare. It's none of my business how many children a person has as long as they do not expect me to support it - pay for food, medical & education for one child ONLY after that your on your own - I suppose the options would be: Birth control, abstinence, give child up for adoption, or keep having them & jerking them up as opposed to raising them.....
Sadly neither is a good deal for middle-class AMERICAN taxpayers...
2006-08-22 04:32:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I would pay the tax money on people who really need it for them to live more satisfied than stupid welfare. I really hate welfare because that's only for lazy people who don't wanna work and only make more babies to get long lasting money. Work! Know how to win the money with some sweat, not sitting down watching T.V. and eating like a pig!!
2006-08-18 08:42:38 · answer #6 · answered by dismaomay 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I don't know what an "anchor baby" is, but I know I would not like to keep supporting generations of welfare babies.
2006-08-18 06:52:37 · answer #7 · answered by Olive Green Eyes 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
In many instances, anchor babies end up as welfare babies ...
2006-08-18 06:54:53 · answer #8 · answered by Sashie 6 · 6⤊ 1⤋
I think that the mother ship that dropped the anchor, needs to go back to its country of orgin. Welfare recipients are, in most case really needy. I would rather my taxes go towards them.
2006-08-18 07:05:30 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 2⤋
Contrary to the popular belief that families remain on welfare for generations as in the past, the 1996 Welfare Reform Act placed a limit on how long a family could receive cash aid payments.
Plus, families do not receive additional aid for a child born while receiving payments.
2006-08-18 06:54:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
An anchor baby, sometimes jackpot baby, is a colloquial pejorative term referring to a child born in the US to illegal immigrants or non-citizens as a means for the child to attain citizenship or residency rights.
neither one of them. they both rob our system
2006-08-18 07:29:53 · answer #11 · answered by actionsinglemale 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋