I want to know a woman's point of view on the subject. It seems that as long as the dollar keeps going down and naturalized immigrants are taking over, maybe we should learn to beat them at their own game. I sure would love for my kids to own beautiful seaside property somewhere in the tropics or be eligible to work in the European Union. What are your thoughts, ladies?
2007-01-24 06:27:26 · 14 answers · asked by Baddest_Bandulu 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Immigration
I'm not sure which other countries have a policy like we do. I wouldn't travel to another country just to have my baby there but if I happened to have the baby somewhere else, it wouldn't be a bad thing.
2007-01-24 06:37:11 · answer #1 · answered by Niecy 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I'm not a woman but i will like to give you some news, if someone lives iligaly in the USA, and have a baby, this wont come to the point where inmigration can not send this person back just because they baby is a citizen, what hapends is that, if someone with a baby is arested by inmigration, they will find out if there is a famili member that is ligal in the US, so they can take the baby or if there is no family that is ligal to take the baby, inmigration gives the baby to department of the goverment that do all the adoptions and fix all family metters, i dont remember the name of the department. So just because someone have a baby in the US does not mean they cant be deported to they country.
2007-01-24 08:38:35 · answer #2 · answered by javierporras1983 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Being an American woman, born and raised here by parents that immigrated from Mexico when they were teenagers, I would never consider having an "anchor baby" in another country. Why would anyone want to do that if they live here in the US?
I can understand why some of these women do it. Every (well, most) mother wants only the best for their children, and some mothers are willing to do whatever it takes to accomplish that. Some think it's wrong, but if the tables were turned and it were me in that situation, I'm pretty certain I would do the same.
2007-01-24 07:45:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Hmmm... Truthfully...
I AM a mother of three. As a mother I would do whatever is necessary to give my child the best possible chance at life. So, I can understand another woman doing this for their child.
Do I believe every woman that is doing this has the childs best interest at heart? No. Without a doubt there are a number of them whos interests are self serving.
Now, as an American woman I would never want to give birth in another country. I can't even begin to imagine any country that can rival my own country under any circumstances.
2007-01-24 06:39:50 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
I sympathize with the situation, but no. Why? I used to work as a nurse in Labor and Delivery. I remember very clearly an illegal immigrant woman, driven into labor early by an extremely arduous trip to the states to give birth. The baby had numerous complications, and sadly did not make it. Was the woman upset? Yes, but only because she feared she would have to go home because the baby died. Not a word about her baby. I went home that day and hugged my children, because I can't imagine a mom being so uncaring.
2007-01-24 08:47:00 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Actually no. I am pregnant now, and already have one child. I can't imagine putting my baby's life in jeopardy by undertaking something so dangerous. Babies are not leverage.
One has a child here so they can stay here themselves.
If I absolutely had to, I'd leave my children with a relative and I would go and send money back. I'd never put their lives in danger. People die all the time in cargo ships or in the desert, I could never forgive myself if that happened to my children. I also can't imagine living in fear of being deported and separated from my children, or sending my children to do what should be my business as an adult. It's just not something a caring parent would do.
2007-01-24 08:01:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
A friend of mine was born in another country to American parents (she was a military baby and not born on base or in a base hospital) At the age of 21 she was slapped with a huge tax bill because she was a "Citizen". This was on top of the fact she paid taxes in american because she was a "Citizen". You dont get the benefits without being a citizen.
2007-01-24 06:34:10 · answer #7 · answered by fancyname 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I'm not sure that "anchor babies" hold as much clout in other countries as they do in the U.S. But I don't see the point in having one. If I wanted to live in another country (which I already have done) I would do what I'm supposed to do - get a Visa, work permit, etc. That just makes the most sense to me - be a legit citizen, not some scammer.
2007-01-24 06:34:52 · answer #8 · answered by smellyfoot ™ 7 · 4⤊ 0⤋
i am going to ignore about all notwithstanding the first 3 sentences. what's derogatory about the actuality? maximum women human beings in u.s. call for the epidural as a count number for sure. To make that remark is only a actuality of certifiable actuality. pointing out racial/cultural transformations isn't adverse. If I say maximum human beings born contained in the Congo are a lot darker than maximum human beings born in Sweden am I a racist? If I stated Mexicans like spicier food i'm a racist? If I say Englishmen seem to love ale and Germans like beer i'm racist? Too many everybody is searching too demanding to be indignant.
2016-12-03 00:09:18 · answer #9 · answered by huehn 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I thought that America is the only country that does this.
I doubt if I have a baby in France or Germany that it would automatically be a citizen of those countries.
I love the term "anchor baby".
2007-01-24 06:32:57 · answer #10 · answered by Sean 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋