Hypothetically speaking (of course)?

Question

Would any of you ever want to have been born an anchor baby? How would you feel about your mother if you knew that you were born specifically to suit her needs? And does this approach seem irresponsible from a parental point of view?

Hey mexican cat, You have very unique insights, I love your answers to all of my questions. Your participation in this forum is welcomed (by me anyway) :)

Answer 1

No, I would not want to be born an anchor baby and I would not wish that on anyone. I think I would feel ashamed of my parents for using me like this. Of course, it is very irresponsible on the part of a parent to use a child in this way. It is disgusting!

Answer 2

I don't think anyone would we want to be born an anchor baby,and i'm sure is its very traumatizing for the child to know they were born to suit someone's needs. And I do believe that parents who do that should be charged with child abuse,but not just to those who immigrated illegally into the U.S and had them so they could stay here but also lets add all the women who purposely get pregnant to trap a wealthy guy or any guy for that matter.In a sense they are anchor babies too because they had the child in order to tie the guy down to them.They are all irresponsible and should be punished for using a child like that.

Answer 3

1. To have 'wanted' to be born an anchor baby presupposes that I was involved in the decision to be born. The obvious answer is 'no.'

2. Assuming that your hypothesis includes the fact that as an adult I would have knowledge of her "intent," as long as I was raised with love and care, why would I not love her the same way I love the mother I have today?

3. Again, as her son, I could hardly be the judge of the actions of my parents who love me. At this point, there are many variables to consider in giving you an objective answer. I simply cannot be objective about the parents I so love. Unity is the most important factor in our family.

I am very interested in hearing your take, since you pose the question. Unless you are passing judgment, I have a keen interest in hearing your religious perspective. You strike me as being a legalistic person where religion is concerned.

'Anchor' baby is a negative term used to categorize within the illegal immigration debate. Ironically, parents have 'ulterior motives' for various reasons in the births of their children, as demonstrated by other posts here today. So how much thought have you given this hypothesis?

Answer 4

Well of course that's not how it would be explained to the child by any parent committing such an act or their supporters. The way the mother would explain it is that she got pregnant (totally her choice), saw no way to provide for her beloved child in her homeland ( of course many Americans are standing in line to adopt children because they cannot conceive and go abroad to adopt and,furthermore,why not think about that before having sex as I also pose the same question to anyone who seemingly cannot afford to provide for their children in any country?) and saw if they risked the dangerous journey to the United States (without thinking about any negative possible consequences like the fact they are still breaking our law, are still subject to deportation, their children face social stigma, etc.) even illegally, the child would have so much more opportunity(generally at American taxpayer expense) and liberty than anything they could hope for in their "native" country- truly a selfless act on behalf of the mother for her child (of course the mother also ends up benefitting as well with an easy pass towards citizenship usually out of American's compassion to keep families together). And again, I agree with everybody that questions the morality and parental ability of anyone who would take this calculated, devious action- maybe the kids should be taken from any such "mother" and be raised as wards of our country or possibly by American couples who wait in line to adopt a child because they cannot conceive ont heir own and deport the mother without letting her ever see the child; THAT would certainly remove any incentive to produce an "anchor baby" wouldn't it and, for the bleeding hearts who would scream this plan would be pure evil, wouldn't the child be better off than under these conditions than being raised by an immoral, criminal parent who seemingly lacks the ability to reason out consequences and lacks the ability to take care of the child?

Anyway joe your guitar rocked with your response to the question about about illegals not having the same rights as other criminals; "at least you recognize illegals are criminals"- priceless.

Answer 5

Ha ha! I was almost born in Mexico! My mother made it back here just in time! I would have been a US citizen anyway though. But do you think Mexico would have given me citizenship?

But to answer your question, no way would I want to have been a planned anchor baby. It would be heartbreaking to know I'd been born for any purpose other than being wanted.

Answer 6

Remember how they used to call children- Love Child ( one without married parents). These children have the same sigma. The irresponsible parents have given them that. Both here and in Mexico people whisper about it.
Yes I find it very irresponsible of the parents. And many do have children for that reason. Just like many have children to be on welfare. The morals of people have defiantly taken a step backward. And I find it very disturbing.

Thank-You, I admire your Q & A.

Answer 7

What foxnews Said (Above)

Rock On FOXY ;-)



Lets Get Real And Stop Lying To Ourselves

We Should STOP Being Politically Correct
About ALL Conditions
This One Is No Different

These Are NOT Babies
Not Even ANCHOR BABIES
Or CHILDREN Either

Lets Call Them What They Are

TOOLS

Tools USED To MANIPULATE The System Of Laws

Its Disgusting But Its The Truth

No PC About It

Answer 8

I would shoot myself if I served no other means.

It is not just irresponsible, but just goes to show the mentallity. Like Fox And JD said, They are TOOLS, Nothing but BREEDING TOOLS. Much like you would raise farm animals for. Simply means to an end. Pathetic way to look at a human life.

Answer 9

If done for only that purpose its almost child abuse.
The mothers don't care like that one in Chicago hiding from justice,she is hiding behind him,instead of taking responsibility for her crimes.

give the baby time Don she will teach her son to hate and have no respect for the law,just like mommy.

Answer 10

Most babies are born to suit their parent's needs, in many ways. Biologically, we are driven like any other animal to procreate (just keep a one day tally of the ratio of sex questions on YA to all other types, if you doubt me). So, children fulfill a biological need, even to people who cannot support them or have no parenting skills with which to properly raise them.

Then, historically, sons are coveted to inherit/head the family, girls to be married off to form alliances. Women married to wealthy and/or powerful men were often 'put aside' if they did not produce children. In working class families, children were and are necessary to provide income and to take care of aging parents.

The modern day phenomenon of having children to provide needed genetic material or organs for another child may seem like a whole new ball game, but it differs from the historical use of offspring to serve a parent's purpose only in degree.

It used to be, if you were on welfare in the US, your checks kept coming until your youngest child turned 18. So, people literally got paid to have more children. I think there's been some revision to the law, but it's hardly a new phenomenon.

Having a child to gain a foothold in another country is just another aspect, no more, no less. I imagine, mothers who have 'anchor babies' manage to put a positive spin on it, if their kids ever ask.