Anchor babies
Dec 17th 2011, 2:57 pm
#16
American Expat
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,598
Re: Anchor babies
Never said there was one, I said if they were illegally present - using that example though there would be serious questions about their non-immigrant intent if they tried to enter as B-2 with a newborn US citizen child.
There's nothing illegal about having a child in the US - there are various good reasons for doing it, nearest ICU being one of the main ones.
Well if the sponsor was their child, the question would come up at their visa interview as to how their child happened to be a US citizen by birth, and if their entry record were blank or there was no record of an entry at the appropriate time then it would be pretty obvious that they were illegally there when it happened. It would be especially obvious if they were a national of a country that requires a visa to enter (e.g. Mexico) and they'd never been issued one.
My point remains as to what is the benefit to the parents of having a child in the US? Even if I buy this "they save money by going to an American ER" argument, there's definitely no benefit to a Canadian to doing that. Is Mexican healthcare that bad? If it is then why do so many Californians go to Mexican hospitals?
There's nothing illegal about having a child in the US - there are various good reasons for doing it, nearest ICU being one of the main ones.
Well if the sponsor was their child, the question would come up at their visa interview as to how their child happened to be a US citizen by birth, and if their entry record were blank or there was no record of an entry at the appropriate time then it would be pretty obvious that they were illegally there when it happened. It would be especially obvious if they were a national of a country that requires a visa to enter (e.g. Mexico) and they'd never been issued one.
My point remains as to what is the benefit to the parents of having a child in the US? Even if I buy this "they save money by going to an American ER" argument, there's definitely no benefit to a Canadian to doing that. Is Mexican healthcare that bad? If it is then why do so many Californians go to Mexican hospitals?
Dec 19th 2011, 6:37 am
#17
Grumpy Know-it-all
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 8,928
Re: Anchor babies
You're being facetious, you sound "ground of inadmissibility" which I gave you. There are also bans based on unlawful presence in the US, look them up.
Dec 19th 2011, 10:27 am
#19
American Expat
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 7,598
Re: Anchor babies
Unlawful presence can result in a bar under the 212(a)(9) ground of inadmissibility. I don't have to look it up. Unlawful presence is accrued based on the amount of time that passes, not based on how many children someone gives birth to. I'm not being facetious. I'm asking you to identify the law that would be enforced to deny future immigration benefits to someone who came over and had a welfare baby. I'd love to hear which law that is.
Dec 21st 2011, 10:38 am
#20
Grumpy Know-it-all
Thread Starter
Joined: Jul 2010
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 8,928
Re: Anchor babies
You've just cited the reason and I said the same thing in #11. The argument is about an "anchor baby", i.e. by having a baby you get to stay. You don't. You're still illegally present and therefore subject to the same bans and deportation. There is no benefit to having the baby, that was the point I was making. When I said "First off you've got to have done it all legally (i.e. entering and having the baby), otherwise you'd be banned." - that's what I meant, you would be still be subject to being banned and deported for being illegally present or illegally entering. Plus also DS-230 asks about periods of illegal presence in the US.
You said a couple of months, not me. Having a baby in the US and then leaving isn't having an anchor baby the way it is described in the dictionary. You're talking about obtaining better healthcare for the baby, which is a different issue.
The only way that could happen is if they wait 21 years, which seems to me a minimal benefit.
Originally Posted by crg
remained in the US for a couple months
Originally Posted by dictionary
especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship
Last edited by Steve_; Dec 21st 2011 at 10:41 am.
