|
Penélope Cruz and Javier Bardem Are Having an Anchor Baby
At least Fox News can now openly admit their racism...
Ok...I'll bite.
What, exactly, is this racism of which you speak?
|
|
Ok...I'll bite.
What, exactly, is this racism of which you speak?
Rich foreign born people who own a home in the US are having their child here. It's called an "anchor baby" because they are spanish speaking.
Rupert Murdoch is Australian who became an American to get around laws requiring you to be a US citizen to own an American television station. Would you call his children born in the UK, "Anchor Babies"?
No.
|
|
Rich foreign born people who own a home in the US are having their child here. It's called an "anchor baby" because they are spanish speaking.No, it's called an "anchor baby" because non-citizens are deliberately having their child in the US so that the child can have US citizenship.
It offends me that you think whether they are rich should have any relevance.
Rupert Murdoch is Australian who became an American to get around laws requiring you to be a US citizen to own an American television station. Would you call his children born in the UK, "Anchor Babies"?I don't know much about Murdoch, but if he had his kids in the UK (which, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't have birthplace citizenship), then, no, I wouldn't call them "Anchor Babies".
The only criteria for citizenship is being born in a country. When my Great grandfather came here from the Ukraine, my Grandfather became an "Anchor Baby"
And on the other side I have two signers of the declaration of independence and one signer of the constitution.
If they were white, it wouldn't be news.
That is the issue.
I don't think they are using the term "anchor baby" in the traditional way. It is not meant to be only that the child will have U.S. citizenship, but also that it will help to strengthen the entire family's attempt to gain citizenship. It is not clear from the quoted article that the parents are interested in "forcing" U.S. citizenship for themselves.
I can't decide what to say about Spaniards considering themselves "white," so I'll just leave it to somebody else.
|
|
I can't decide what to say about Spaniards considering themselves "white," so I'll just leave it to somebody else.
Absolutely.
It is kind of funny that people from the same country that sent Christopher Columbus are now being accused of having "anchor babies".
Oh sweet irony, the Spanish are trying again. Remember the Aztecs!
Eh. Cruz and Bardem? They're both beautiful people. Let em stay. :P
|
If this (anchor babies) is an issue, it's because people are economic migrants trying to get a toe-hold in a rich country. Frankly, two millionaire film stars don't qualify - they will have no problem getting visas to work in the US, and doubtless haven't in the past either. It seems to me they are doing it this way because it would be convenient for their kid, especially as it might well spend a lot of time in the US with their work. So the use of the term "anchor baby" is probably erroneous in this instance.
This is about immigration, not racism (unless consider the issue of immigration to have racist overtones, which it might or might not, depending on your views and the reasons others have theirs). This isn't really an issue where Fox = Bad necessarily either, since views on immigration don't easily divide along left / right lines either.
Frankly, no one actually mentions the term "anchor baby" in the text. The only possible oddity is in the use of the term "convenient" at the end of the piece, and even that is up to interpretation. Storm in a teacup?
|
|
If they want their kid to be a US citizen, they, themselves, can become US citizens.
Whether they are rich or not has nothing to do with it.
btw, the problem with "Anchor Babies" is -not- about economic migrants trying to get a toe hold in a rich country. Mexico is a rich country.
Since the two individuals in question are both EU citizens, they don't really need to be US citizens, and neither does their child, since they already come from a wealthy country. I expect the advantage in dual-nationality, such as it is, is minor in these circumstances, and more to do with lifestyle. Which I think I said before. What's so great about being a US citizen for their child, I'm not sure.
The primary issues with "Anchor Babies" are created by people at the lower end of the economic ladder.
Which I also think I said.
The problem is that the Mexican government treats the US social services system as it's dumping ground for it's poor rather than providing Mexican social services (which would raise taxes for Mexican not-poor). This is a human rights issue as it splits families (Mexican laborers leave their families behind), slashes the working wage of American poor (by nearly 5%), retards the ability of either Mexican poor or American poor from climbing up the economic ladder, makes it more difficult for Mexican poor or American poor from getting social services (for example, it has bankrupted many hospitals in the US), on and on and on. But, the inescapable fact is that we shouldn't create two different sets of acceptable behavior based on whether somebody is rich or not.
Well, Mexico has little to do with this story, which makes me wonder why everyone is getting so excited about Mexico. And Mexico is not a rich country, it is a so-so middle income country which is doing well and has done over the last few years but is nothing like the US in terms of prosperity.
Moreover, protectionism (including the closing of borders to free movement of workers) makes nobody richer. Most of the ills you describe are actually problems associated with illegal immigration, rather than immigration as such. And the poor with their wages being cut are vulnerable anyway, to changing technologies and so on - arguably, the solution is better education rather than border controls (which don't work anyway) and a more market-driven, honest approach to immigration.
...By contrast, there are about 70,000 Canadian illegal aliens....
pulled from the net.
----------
The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The recent actions of the Tea Party are prompting an exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, WORK, and to agree with Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck.
Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists, and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. "I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota.
"The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. He then installed loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields. "That was real effective," he said. "The liberals became annoyed and started avoiding my property."
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons and drive them across the border where they are simply left to fend for themselves. "A lot of these people are not prepared for our rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a single bottle of imported drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley Cabernet, though."
When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about plans being made to build re-education camps where liberals will be forced to drink domestic beer and watch NASCAR races.
In recent days, liberals have turned to ingenious ways of crossing the border . Some have been disguised as senior citizens taking a bus trip to buy cheap Canadian prescription drugs. After catching a half-dozen young vegans in powdered wig disguises, Canadian immigration authorities began stopping buses and quizzing the supposed senior citizens about Perry Como and Rosemary Clooney to prove that they were alive in the '50s. "If they can't identify the accordion player on The Lawrence Welk Show, we become very suspicious about their age," an official said.
Canadian citizens have complained that the illegal immigrants are creating an organic-broccoli shortage and are renting all the Michael Moore movies. "I really feel sorry for American liberals, but the Canadian economy just can't support them." an Ottawa resident said. "How many art-history majors does one country need?"
If they were white, it wouldn't be news.
That is the issue.
Hrrmmm. I think if they were not famous, it wouldn't be news.
...By contrast, there are about 70,000 Canadian illegal aliens....pulled from the net.
----------
The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The recent actions of the Tea Party are prompting an exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, WORK, and to agree with Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck.
Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists, and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. "I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota.
"The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. He then installed loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields. "That was real effective," he said. "The liberals became annoyed and started avoiding my property."
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons and drive them across the border where they are simply left to fend for themselves. "A lot of these people are not prepared for our rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a single bottle of imported drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley Cabernet, though."
When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about plans being made to build re-education camps where liberals will be forced to drink...
:)
|
......By contrast, there are about 70,000 Canadian illegal aliens....pulled from the net.
----------
The flood of American liberals sneaking across the border into Canada has intensified in the past week, sparking calls for increased patrols to stop the illegal immigration. The recent actions of the Tea Party are prompting an exodus among left-leaning citizens who fear they'll soon be required to hunt, pray, WORK, and to agree with Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck.
Canadian border farmers say it's not uncommon to see dozens of sociology professors, animal-rights activists, and Unitarians crossing their fields at night. "I went out to milk the cows the other day, and there was a Hollywood producer huddled in the barn," said Manitoba farmer Red Greenfield, whose acreage borders North Dakota.
"The producer was cold, exhausted and hungry. He asked me if I could spare a latte and some free-range chicken. When I said I didn't have any, he left before I even got a chance to show him my screenplay, eh?"
In an effort to stop the illegal aliens, Greenfield erected higher fences, but the liberals scaled them. He then installed loudspeakers that blared Rush Limbaugh across the fields. "That was real effective," he said. "The liberals became annoyed and started avoiding my property."
Officials are particularly concerned about smugglers who meet liberals near the Canadian border, pack them into Volvo station wagons and drive them across the border where they are simply left to fend for themselves. "A lot of these people are not prepared for our rugged conditions," an Ontario border patrolman said. "I found one carload without a single bottle of imported drinking water. They did have a nice little Napa Valley Cabernet, though."
When liberals are caught, they're sent back across the border, often wailing loudly that they fear retribution from conservatives. Rumors have been circulating about plans being made to build re-education camps where liberals
And unfortunately, Canada now has a Conservative government which = American Liberal, us Canadian liberals are jumping ship to Europe Canadian liberals = European conservatives :P
I can't decide what to say about Spaniards considering themselves "white," so I'll just leave it to somebody else.I'm really really curious as to what considerations would make Spaniards 'not white'.
They no speakie the Ingrish? ::Snicker::
|
|
If you had anything resembling -evidence- that being brown has anything to do with it, you might be able to make a point worth making. I think that's tragic because if you had anything resembling evidence that this was the case, you might have been someone worth discussing this issue with.True, but they would use the term "Anchor Baby". As long as they are brown.Hrrmmm. I think if they were not famous, it wouldn't be news.
If they were white, it wouldn't be news.
That is the issue.
What evidence can I produce when my argument is that they wouldn't use anchor baby unless they were Spanish speaking?
You can prove me wrong if you show another article from Fox showing anyone english speaking having a child in the states and Fox calling it an "Anchor Baby".
If you had anything resembling -evidence- that being brown has anything to do with it, you might be able to make a point worth making. I think that's tragic because if you had anything resembling evidence that this was the case, you might have been someone worth discussing this issue with.True, but they would use the term "Anchor Baby". As long as they are brown.Hrrmmm. I think if they were not famous, it wouldn't be news.
If they were white, it wouldn't be news.
That is the issue.
What evidence can I produce when my argument is that they wouldn't use anchor baby unless they were Spanish speaking?
You can prove me wrong if you show another article from Fox showing anyone english speaking having a child in the states and Fox calling it an "Anchor Baby".
The statement is made about the numbers of babies attributed to illegal immigrants without respect to whether or not they are or not white or brown and their are considerable numbers who are white.
So, any instance in which you are referring to them calling babies anchor babies, is one such instance.
There you go.
|
|
Whether they are trillionaries or too poor to afford belly button lint should have ZERO bearing on whether or not it is called an anchor baby or not. The wealth of the parent is immaterial as to whether the child should be legally recognised as a US citizen as a result of being born on US soil. If a monetary requirement is all that's neccisary to make one child righteous and the other anathema then we have so lost our way as a nation that perhaps we need a historic colonic after all.
Isshia
If you had anything resembling -evidence- that being brown has anything to do with it, you might be able to make a point worth making. I think that's tragic because if you had anything resembling evidence that this was the case, you might have been someone worth discussing this issue with.True, but they would use the term "Anchor Baby". As long as they are brown.Hrrmmm. I think if they were not famous, it wouldn't be news.
If they were white, it wouldn't be news.
That is the issue.
What evidence can I produce when my argument is that they wouldn't use anchor baby unless they were Spanish speaking?
You can prove me wrong if you show another article from Fox showing anyone english speaking having a child in the states and Fox calling it an "Anchor Baby".
You should work on your logic a little.
You are arguing the presence of racism. To do that, you need to demonstrate racism and not us the lack of. Theor is no demonstration of racism because the anchor baby term does equally apply to whites as well as any ethnicity, and their is strong reason to believe this is "news" because of the celebrity aspect rather than skin color.
We are still awaiting you to prove racism.
|
|
If you had anything resembling -evidence- that being brown has anything to do with it, you might be able to make a point worth making. I think that's tragic because if you had anything resembling evidence that this was the case, you might have been someone worth discussing this issue with.True, but they would use the term "Anchor Baby". As long as they are brown.Hrrmmm. I think if they were not famous, it wouldn't be news.
If they were white, it wouldn't be news.
That is the issue.
What evidence can I produce when my argument is that they wouldn't use anchor baby unless they were Spanish speaking?
You can prove me wrong if you show another article from Fox showing anyone english speaking having a child in the states and Fox calling it an "Anchor Baby".
The statement is made about the numbers of babies attributed to illegal immigrants without respect to whether or not they are or not white or brown and their are considerable numbers who are white.
So, any instance in which you are referring to them calling babies anchor babies, is one such instance.
There you go.
Find me a specific example where the term "Anchor Baby" is used on Fox news not referring to latinos.
A large number of foreign born celebrities have had children in the US, but only Spanish speaking ones are called "Anchor Babies".
|
|
You should work on your logic a little.You are arguing the presence of racism. To do that, you need to demonstrate racism and not us the lack of. Theor is no demonstration of racism because the anchor baby term does equally apply to whites as well as any ethnicity, and their is strong reason to believe this is "news" because of the celebrity aspect rather than skin color.
We are still awaiting you to prove racism.
Show me an example of where it was used to describe an english speaking couple in the same terms, on Fox.
I've been googling, I can't find it.
I've found a number of celebrities who were citizens of other countries who had children in the US. This is the only time I've seen them described as "Anchor Babies."
You should work on your logic a little.You are arguing the presence of racism. To do that, you need to demonstrate racism and not us the lack of. Theor is no demonstration of racism because the anchor baby term does equally apply to whites as well as any ethnicity, and their is strong reason to believe this is "news" because of the celebrity aspect rather than skin color.
We are still awaiting you to prove racism.
Show me an example of where it was used to describe an english speaking couple in the same terms, on Fox.
I've been googling, I can't find it.
I've found a number of celebrities who were citizens of other countries who had children in the US. This is the only time I've seen them described as "Anchor Babies."
It doesn't matter. There is every indication that it is done so in this case because of celebrity. It not being done in other cases does not mean celebrity in this case.
Your statement of racism is a dumbass statement in this case.
|
|
Whether they are trillionaries or too poor to afford belly button lint should have ZERO bearing on whether or not it is called an anchor baby or not. The wealth of the parent is immaterial as to whether the child should be legally recognised as a US citizen as a result of being born on US soil. If a monetary requirement is all that's neccisary to make one child righteous and the other anathema then we have so lost our way as a nation that perhaps we need a historic colonic after all.
Isshia
If not birth in the US, what is the basis of Citizenship?
Let's go ahead and have the real, underlying conversation here. We are a nation of immigrants. Most Americans can only trace our time on this continent back about 3 or 4 generations.
So what should the basis of citizenship be? Passing a citizenship test? Well in that case nearly half of Oklahoma doesn't cut it.
http://soonerpoll.com/just-less-than-half-of-oklahoma-educated-likely-voter s-fail-citizenship-test115/
The fact is that someone born in the United States is a citizen of the United States. That is the criteria for being a citizen.
The fact is most Americans are only a few generations removed from an "Anchor Baby". And if you look back in history at the various waves of immigrants that came through, we forget ourselves.
We forget entire cities and even counties were predominantly German speaking. We forget the Italian and Irish immigration waves included the same types of problems we blame on Latin Americans.
We forget our history, and act like when Fox points to the two Spanish speaking celebrities and calls their children "Anchor Babies", there isn't an implication behind it. Like it isn't because they are Spanish speaking.
|
|
You should work on your logic a little.You are arguing the presence of racism. To do that, you need to demonstrate racism and not us the lack of. Theor is no demonstration of racism because the anchor baby term does equally apply to whites as well as any ethnicity, and their is strong reason to believe this is "news" because of the celebrity aspect rather than skin color.
We are still awaiting you to prove racism.
Show me an example of where it was used to describe an english speaking couple in the same terms, on Fox.
I've been googling, I can't find it.
I've found a number of celebrities who were citizens of other countries who had children in the US. This is the only time I've seen them described as "Anchor Babies."
It doesn't matter. There is every indication that it is done so in this case because of celebrity. It not being done in other cases does not mean celebrity in this case.
Your statement of racism is a dumbass statement in this case.
I said (and say) they are using "Anchor Baby" because they are spanish speaking.
You are the one describing it as "racism"
You should work on your logic a little.You are arguing the presence of racism. To do that, you need to demonstrate racism and not us the lack of. Theor is no demonstration of racism because the anchor baby term does equally apply to whites as well as any ethnicity, and their is strong reason to believe this is "news" because of the celebrity aspect rather than skin color.
We are still awaiting you to prove racism.
Show me an example of where it was used to describe an english speaking couple in the same terms, on Fox.
I've been googling, I can't find it.
I've found a number of celebrities who were citizens of other countries who had children in the US. This is the only time I've seen them described as "Anchor Babies."
It doesn't matter. There is every indication that it is done so in this case because of celebrity. It not being done in other cases does not mean celebrity in this case.
Your statement of racism is a dumbass statement in this case.
I said (and say) they are using "Anchor Baby" because they are spanish speaking.
You are the one describing it as "racism"
Bull s!$#.
The OP called it racism.
Someone else asked what racism the OP was speaking of.
Then you responded on why it was called racism and continued to defend that notion...
The explanation of the racism being mentioned in the OP...
Ok...I'll bite.
What, exactly, is this racism of which you speak?
Rich foreign born people who own a home in the US are having their child here. It's called an "anchor baby" because they are spanish speaking.
Rupert Murdoch is Australian who became an American to get around laws requiring you to be a US citizen to own an American television station. Would you call his children born in the UK, "Anchor Babies"?
No.
The continued defense...
<snip>
If they were white, it wouldn't be news.That is the issue.
Do you honestly believe this would be in the news, or the term "Anchor Baby" would be used, if they were white.
What's the issue? That you had white ancestors who signed the Declaration of Independence? I'm afraid I don't understand.
If they were white, it wouldn't be news.That is the issue.
...and
True, but they would use the term "Anchor Baby". As long as they are brown.Hrrmmm. I think if they were not famous, it wouldn't be news.
If they were white, it wouldn't be news.
That is the issue.
There you go. You are calling it racism.
|
|
There you go. You are calling it racism.
I am saying if they weren't spanish speaking, Fox News wouldn't have described the child as an Anchor Baby.
I stand by that statement.
I've searched for them using the term in other examples, and I have not found it.
If you can show otherwise, feel free. If you think Fox choosing to call a spanish speaking couples child an anchor baby is racist, I would not disagree with you.
There you go. You are calling it racism.
I am saying if they weren't spanish speaking, Fox News wouldn't have described the child as an Anchor Baby.
I stand by that statement.
I've searched for them using the term in other examples, and I have not found it.
If you can show otherwise, feel free. If you think Fox choosing to call a spanish speaking couples child an anchor baby is racist, I would not disagree with you.
You explained why the OP called it racism and then continued to state how it would not occur if they were "white". Being white is independent of native tongue. you were arguing it in terms of race and thus in terms of racism.
You were calling it racism and are lying by saying you are not. Doubly so by continuously insinuating that I am calling it racism.
|
Dual citizenship is possible. My cousin has it because she was born on Ramstein Air Force base in Germany while my uncle was stationed there with his wife. My aunt and uncle are US citizens. My cousin has both USA and German passports and citizenship. If the citizenship is an automatic granting, (soil, blood, or marriage are possibilities) the US allows dual citizenship. If it is a change by choice, the US forces a singular choice. Paraphrasing the State Department.
How is this all a cause for concern? What difference does it make if people are made citizens by birth in this country?
|
|
How is this all a cause for concern? What difference does it make if people are made citizens by birth in this country?Have you ever heard of chain migration?
I have.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_migration
But I kind of like having a Little Italy, and Chinatown, and all of the other ethnic communities that have come with each successive wave of immigration.
It isn't like America was founded by immigrants and has grown on the backs of progressive waves of immigrants.
Nope.
How many generations does your family go back Lilith? How many drops does it take for you to be pure? Being born in a country isn't enough, do you want a citizenship test? What criteria for purity would you like to set?
Would your Great Grandparents meet it?
|
|
Dual citizenship is possible. My cousin has it because she was born on Ramstein Air Force base in Germany while my uncle was stationed there with his wife. My aunt and uncle are US citizens. My cousin has both USA and German passports and citizenship. If the citizenship is an automatic granting, (soil, blood, or marriage are possibilities) the US allows dual citizenship. If it is a change by choice, the US forces a singular choice. Paraphrasing the State Department.
As I said, the biggest source of the problem is that the State Department ignores the law.
And I am sure you would be willing to raise taxes to pay for deporting them, right?
http://articles.cnn.com/2007-09-12/us/deportation.cost_1_illegal-immigrants -immigration-illegal-residents?_s=PM:US
And that doesn't include finding them or court costs.
Because God forbid anyone come into our country to work for a better life. How Un-American is that...
http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm
|
|
As I said, the biggest source of the problem is that the State Department ignores the law.
Ah, your going to make me use my google foo...
Entry point and the specific quote below:It indeed used to be the case in the US that you couldn't hold dual citizenship (except in certain cases if you had dual citizenship from birth or childhood, in which case some Supreme Court rulings -- Perkins v. Elg (1939), Mandoli v. Acheson (1952), and Kawakita v. U.S. (1952) -- permitted you to keep both). However, most of the laws forbidding dual citizenship were struck down by the US Supreme Court in two cases: a 1967 decision, Afroyim v. Rusk, as well as a second ruling in 1980, Vance v. Terrazas.
So, the laws has changed a little since 1924.
How is this all a cause for concern? What difference does it make if people are made citizens by birth in this country?
For the poor, it means access to social services/welfare. I believe, children of illegal immigrants who, being born on US soil and gaining citizenship, cannot be deported. Therefore, their parents assume they have a sliver of a chance of not being deported and breaking up the family. For the rich in this case, the kid can one day play games on his taxes. It will all depend on where his "paycheck" is mailed to.