400,000 Anchor Babies Cost U.S. taxpayers Billions Annually

[bonnie]

400,000 Anchor Babies Cost U.S. taxpayers Billions Annually

Monday, August 09, 2010 12:34

BY Frosty Wooldridge

The Dallas Morning News, August 8, 2010, reported that 60,000 new anchor babies find their way into hospitals in Texas every year. Parkland Hospital, in Dallas, suffers nine out of ten babies arriving from illegal alien mothers.

The costs run into the billions of U.S. taxpayer paid dollars for births, special care, K-12, medical, assisted housing, food stamps, ‘free’ breakfasts and lunches, crime and incarceration costs.

“In an article in Sunday’s edition, the paper suggests that the move by some Republicans to press for changes to the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, preventing automatic citizenship for babies born to illegal immigrants, could have special resonance in Texas,” reported the Dallas Morning News.

Not only do the new U.S. citizens enjoy unlimited welfare benefits, their mothers, virtually 100 percent of them unskilled, illiterate and unable to care for their themselves or their babies—become welfare mothers. That’s a total of 800,000 welfare recipients annually added to U.S. taxpayer paid funding. The total costs according to the Edwin Rubenstein report showed a total cost across 15 federal agencies for illegal aliens at $346 billion annually. (Source: www.thesocialcontract.com )

"They're violating our law, and we're giving their children the benefit of U.S. citizenship," said state Rep. Leo Berman, R-Tyler, whose 2009 bill in the Legislature would have challenged the birthright of immigrant children.

His bill died in committee, but he plans on introducing it again to NOT give illegal alien children a birth certificate.

"I've checked the Congressional Record for when the 14th Amendment was written, and the author was quoted as saying that it did not apply to foreigners," he said. "There's no question in my mind about it."

Former House member Nathan Deal (R-GA) introduced a bill ten years ago to stop ‘anchor babies’, but his bill found little support and languished in committee. He introduced another bill last year, H.R. 1968, but again, House members refuse to move it forward. As of last week, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), wants to move on banishing anchor babies along with Mitch McConnell minority leader (R-KY).

Meanwhile American taxpayers see their money running down the drain as 400,000 fresh, new anchor babies arrive year in and year out.

[Dr. Shane]

There is a lot of hate out there. We would have to amend the Constitution in order to deny the children of immigrants citizenship. That is the same amendment that granted slaves citizenship. Only pure hatred could drive such a change. Shall we repeal the amendment that gave citizenship to the slaves so we can deny citizenship to the children of immigrants? God forbid! Yet that is exactly what some cold-hearted conservatives want to do.

Anchor babies do cost the American public money. However we are guilty of spinning the story when we ignore what immigrants contribute to society. If we had a work-visa program, we would still have anchor babies. There is no getting away from that. Moreover, our population needs to grow. One of the reasons we have a Social Security crisis is because we have too many collecting Social Security and not enough paying in. Yet the same crowd that wants to deny children of immigrants citizenship wants to deny them an education. With an education this children will become productive, tax-paying members of society. Without it they will become criminals.

The cold-hearted crowd is governed by fear. These immigrants don't look like us and they talk funny. They entered the country illegally because we have failed to provide them a path to do so legally. Electrocute them. Shoot them in the head. Feed them to alligators. Deny them medical attention. Let them die from simple infections. Kill them is the message from the cold-hearted conservatives. We have plenty of unemployed architects and teachers to pick our tomatoes and strawberries. We don't need some honest folk here that talk funny.

[bonnie]

There is a lot of hate out there. We would have to amend the Constitution in order to deny the children of immigrants citizenship. That is the same amendment that granted slaves citizenship. Only pure hatred could drive such a change. Shall we repeal the amendment that gave citizenship to the slaves so we can deny citizenship to the children of immigrants? God forbid! Yet that is exactly what some cold-hearted conservatives want to do.

[Dr. Shane]

Of course the Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment does include the children of illegal immigrants. The Amendment would have to be repealed and replaced in order to change that. The concept of doing that is based on intolerance, fear and hatred. God forbid we should go there. The love of Christ demands otherwise.

Illegals are no some kind of parasite on society. One could make that case for alcoholics and drug addicts living off from our welfare system. However illegals work and contribute to our society as a whole. Those that do collect welfare benefits are eligible because the jobs they work do not pay them a living wage. If we kick them out of the country, who is going to work those jobs? Even if unemployed architects and teachers take those jobs, the welfare benefits would still be paid out because whoever is working those jobs are not going to be eligible for government assistance. The reality is that as we send those workers back, we create a labor shortage because unemployed architects and teachers do not come forward to pick tomatoes and oranges.

The US needs more tax-paying citizens. The money spent on anchor babies is an investment. Children of immigrants have the same rate of poverty as the American public as a whole. So these babies are not destined to grow up and live off the welfare system. The probability of those anchor babies growing up and becoming engineers, managers, policemen, mechanics, doctors or any other type of productive, tax-paying citizen is just as likely as it is for any other person born in the US. The investment we spend on anchor babies today will pay for itself when they become adults and productive members of society.

Cold-hearted conservatives do not like people talking funny even if they came here legally. They want to force everyone to speak English. These cold-hearted types never consider learning Spanish. They always lay the burden to learn another language on the immigrant. They self-righteously proclaim they do not need to learn another language while not allowing the immigrant the right to make the same claim. They would rather electrocute or shoot the immigrant in the head than to listen to him or her talk funny. They are far from the compassionate conservativism of George W. Bush. They ought to hang their heads down in shame, go sit in the corner and contemplate on the love of Christ and what He accomplished at the cross for everyone regardless how they speak.

[bonnie]

Of course the Supreme Court has ruled that the 14th Amendment does include the children of illegal immigrants. The Amendment would have to be repealed and replaced in order to change that. The concept of doing that is based on intolerance, fear and hatred. God forbid we should go there. The love of Christ demands otherwise.

[Dr. Shane]

It is not up to the employer to learn the language of all that apply.

[bonnie]

Quote:

Oh so wrong but don't worry, that too can be forgiven. Many companies hire interpreters not because the government or some political groups requires them to but because the free market requires them to. Spanish-speak immigrants have skills that the market desires so much that companies are willing to hire interpreters to they can hire these hard-working and valuable workers.

Worrying about your forgiveness in this is long past bottom of the list.

What employer's do to increase their business voluntarily is a different issue than being "forced" to hire someone that refuses to learn the skills needed for the job they apply for.

Or pay them to not work

Quote:

Immigrants don't come to America for a free lunch any more than the pilgrims sailed on the Mayflower for a free lunch or the pioneers headed west in wagon trains for a free lunch. America is a nation built on immigration and the spirit of those that came here and settled this land is still alive today in those that come.

Some perhaps,I live next door to a few where that is certainly true.But,they learned english,worked hard,started businesses because of skills they were willing to learn

Neither the pilgrims or the american settlers came for a free lunch.They were not the type or of the character to demand what the current type of illegals can and do demand.

Quote:

Sure I can connect those dots. All the radical hate-mongering conservatives were supporting Rick Perry until they discovered he had a heart. Then they all bolted over to the candidate that promised to electrocute immigrants and shoot them in the head.

I guess I should thank you for not disappointing me with your response. It is typical of you,"I Shane will tell you what was really meant".

[Dr. Shane]

Not all the pilgrims and pioneers learned the languages of the local Indian tribes. Some did and some didn't. So it is with immigrants today. Not all immigrants learn English. Some do and some don't. But we sure do need them folks here. More and more Baby-boomers are retiring and we need more folks to pay into Social Security. We have a big deficit and with the burden of Social Security resting securely on the poor and middle class, we sure could use some more of those tax-payers at the bottom of the ladder paying in.

[bonnie]

The love of Christ demands otherwise.

Cold hearted conservative do not like people talking funny even if they came here legally. They want to force everyone to speak English. They ought to hang their heads down in shame, go sit in the corner and contemplate on the love of Christ and what He accomplished at the cross for everyone regardless how they speak.

It is probably best to leave this with you.Obviously you have a special brand of love that Christ demands. I always thought Christ demanded honesty and kept the task of condemning others to hell for himself.

When you make up motives and desires of others,based on what you want their opinions to mean, you are in a different christian class than I care to be.You obviously relish the position you have taken for yourself,gleefully anticipating a nasty special place in hell for those that dare to think differently than you. That is not a Christ I care to know

That is something I don't think the love of Christ wants or demands.

The responsibility is far to great for me to want that job.Nor can I see myself at any time,no matter who it is,gleefully anticipating that special place in hell for anyone. Maybe that is my lack,but I will take that up with Christ when the time comes.

Any that want to ride in this particular bandwagon with you is free to do so. Many will I am sure. That is not my problem to correct or to condemn to a special place in hell.

I am confident that God meant what was written in the bible.No amount of justification and hate spewing on anyone's part will change my mind on that. I am perfectly comfortable not worrying about your forgiveness in this matter or being afraid of your condemnation.Especially when what you say as fact is a personal opinion only.

[Dr. Shane]

You obviously relish the position you have taken for yourself, gleefully anticipating a nasty special place in hell for those that dare to think differently than you.

Not at all.

First, I reserve the right to be wrong. I have been wrong many times. I use to be a cold-hearted conservative myself but compassionate conservatives like George W. Bush inspired me and I started to see things differently.

Secondly, just as God has no joy in the death of the wicked, neither do I. I would much rather see them turn from their evil ways and repent. There is always hope until they draw their last breath.

Thirdly, different opinions keep the world from being boring - kind of like ice cream. I prefer 31 flavors myself.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

You obviously relish the position you have taken for yourself, gleefully anticipating a nasty special place in hell for those that dare to think differently than you.

Not at all.

First, I reserve the right to be wrong. I have been wrong many times. I use to be a cold-hearted conservative myself but compassionate conservatives like George W. Bush inspired me and I started to see things differently.

Secondly, just as God has no joy in the death of the wicked, neither do I. I would much rather see them turn from their evil ways and repent. There is always hope until they draw their last breath.

Thirdly, different opinions keep the world from being boring - kind of like ice cream. I prefer 31 flavors myself.

Sorry,if any of the above were true,you would stick to facts while condemning others.Perhaps there are some hoping to see you turn from your evil condemnation of others.There is always hope till you draw your last breath

[Dr. Shane]

I don't condemn individuals although I am certainly willing to condemn ideology (aka bandwagons). I try to encourage people to think, think, think and not just jump on the hottest and most exciting bandwagon of the moment.

Right now we have two bandwagons rolling down the street. One is the TEA Party and the other is the Occupy Wall Street movements. I have express reservations about both movements.

[bonnie]

I don't condemn individuals although I am certainly willing to condemn ideology (aka bandwagons). I try to encourage people to think, think, think and not just jump on the hottest and most exciting bandwagon of the moment.

Right now we have two bandwagons rolling down the street. One is the TEA Party and the other is the Occupy Wall Street movements. I have express reservations about both movements.

Wrong,we have three bandwagons,one is called the "gospel of Shane

Regardless of how you want to sound now that is not what you have said previously. I don't have your exact words in front of me and it is not important enough to going digging thru my saved file. You expressed a desire for a special place in hell for cold hearted conservatives. Not ideology but a specific group of people.

You either do take the right to speak for Christ in matters such as this or you think you have the right to condemn others to hell on your own.You make up as you go along what you "claim" they want or believe.

Either way you are wrong and part of a christian ideology I do not want any part of.

You can change your words now,but there is a very accurate record

[olger]

Speaking English in America affords an advantage to a person. Why not learn it?

[bonnie]

Speaking English in America affords an advantage to a person. Why not learn it?

Because they don't have to.Coming to this country entitles those doing so to dictate the terms and conditions they will accept.

If you refuse and cannot find a job as a result,you will be fed and cared for.

If you have lived here a decade and need medical attention,make others pay for an interpreter.You do not need to learn english as long as you are comfortable denying the rights of others in favor of manufactured rights

[Dr. Shane]

Speaking English in America affords an advantage to a person. Why not learn it?

A lot of Hispanics are content. That is what they want out of life. Some do run the rat race but a lot are simply content with food on the table, a bed to sleep in, a wife to embrace and a God to worship. I know people in Mexico that only work three days a week because that is all they have to work to make ends meet. They are not lazy. When they work, they work hard. But if they don't have to work they would rather spend time with family and friends in the shade watching the chickens peck. The Hispanics that don't learn English don't learn it because they don't see it as a priority. It is as simple as that. The American mindset is to make as much money as we can. The Latino mindset has other priorities that are sometimes hard for us to grasp but just as important to them as ours are to us.

[bonnie]

A lot of Hispanics are content. That is what they want out of life. Some do run the rat race but a lot are simply content with food on the table, a bed to sleep in, a wife to embrace and a God to worship. I know people in Mexico that only work three days a week because that is all they have to work to make ends meet. They are not lazy. When they work, they work hard. But if they don't have to work they would rather spend time with family and friends in the shade watching the chickens peck. The Hispanics that don't learn English don't learn it because they don't see it as a priority. It is as simple as that. The American mindset is to make as much money as we can. The Latino mindset has other priorities that are sometimes hard for us to grasp but just as important to them as ours are to us.

And they should be entitled to that,just as long as they do not demand others pay for the food on that table and their lifestyle choice

[Dr. Shane]

we have three bandwagons,one is called the "gospel of Shane

[Dr. Shane]

And they should be entitled to that,just as long as they do not demand others pay for the food on that table and their lifestyle choice

Our welfare offices go out looking for people they can give food stamps and medical assistance to. They put up posters in ethnic stores, unemployment offices, laundry mats and such places. They use public school advisers to find eligible people to make enroll in these government assistance programs. The programs are offered to immigrants in such a way that they would be most foolish not to accept them.

I have met many Mexicans that have come to the US to work. I have met them here and in Mexico (after they returned). I have never heard any talk about welfare being an incentive to go to the US. They come here to work. When the work runs out and they are between harvests, some do end up going on welfare - others return home. We can do welfare reform if we want to but that is apart from immigration reform.

The idea that women come here and have anchor babies so they can get welfare is rather silly. Sure some may do that but most anchor babies are born here because the mother wants the child to be a US citizen. It is the citizenship for their child that they want, not the welfare benefits.

[bonnie]

That sounds like an awfully lonely bandwagon.

[bonnie]

Our welfare offices go out looking for people they can give food stamps and medical assistance to. They put up posters in ethnic stores, unemployment offices, laundry mats and such places. They use public school advisers to find eligible people to make enroll in these government assistance programs. The programs are offered to immigrants in such a way that they would be most foolish not to accept them.

[Dr. Shane]

If we didn't have welfare to help these poor folks between harvests the farmers would have to pay them more so they could survive. The farmers can't do that because the amount they pay is market driven. The only get so much for watermelons, tomatoes, onions, etc. So the welfare we provide the laborers is indirectly a subsidy to the farmer. It allows the farmer to be competitive. This allows us to have an inexpensive food supply. So as each of us buys cheap tomatoes, carrots, onions, melons, etc. we benefit from the welfare dollars paid out to the laborers between harvests.

The other option is to only grow crops we can mechanically harvest on our farms and buy all our produce from the third world.

[bonnie]

If we didn't have welfare to help these poor folks between harvests the farmers would have to pay them more so they could survive. The farmers can't do that because the amount they pay is market driven. The only get so much for watermelons, tomatoes, onions, etc. So the welfare we provide the laborers is indirectly a subsidy to the farmer. It allows the farmer to be competitive. This allows us to have an inexpensive food supply. So as each of us buys cheap tomatoes, carrots, onions, melons, etc. we benefit from the welfare dollars paid out to the laborers between harvests.

The other option is to only grow crops we can mechanically harvest on our farms and buy all our produce from the third world.

Welfare regardless of who it is given to does not increase revenue,it takes existing money from others and puts it in the hands of those not producing. You will spin most anything to make welfare a productive means of income.

Paying 2.00 a lb? more for tomato's or paying a 1,000.00? a month in subsidy or welfare handouts is not a great trade off.

Paying people to be idle is only great finance according to those that don't have a problem taking from others.

A free market will take care of itself if government gets it's hands off.

Welfare/charity should be only temporary ,not part of the way of life for any with the exception of physical or mentally handicapped.

Welfare is not a moral right. A moral right to what others work for does not exist.A manufactured right takes rights from one and gives that right to another.Poor people between harvests should be required to work at other jobs. Many unskilled labor jobs can be had.If not and they are illegals,go home and wait for the next harvest.Getting across the border again and again does not seem to be a big problem.

No one should be able to take from others because they feel their need is greater.Accepting help from others should be as limited as possible and not part of the lifestyle.

Doesn't matter if it is the takers on Wall Street or illegals.

It doesn't take long to wipe out any tax increase from illegals or others with welfare benefits.

Unlike what Pelosi says that unemployment checks are good for the economy,welfare and extended unemployment remains money already in the system and simply places it in the hands of someone else

[olger]

That sounds like another word for laziness to me. If you are that content, then you should be content in your own country.

g

[bonnie]

That sounds like another word for laziness to me. If you are that content, then you should be content in your own country.

g

Probably works well in Mexico.The problem comes in when they want to transport Mexico here,yet draw our welfare.

This is supposed to be one nation. We are ending up a nation of little nations.Little nations that still give their allegiance to their country of birth,yet demand taxpayer dollar to do so.

If they are content to work three days a week and watch the chickens scratch in the dirt the rest of the time,Mexico is the place to do it. Three days of work does not cut it here