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

[Dr. Shane]

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

I think you may lack some cultural appreciation. I will suggest that Latinos find it much easier to keep the 10th Commandment than most Americans do.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: olger

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

I think you may lack some cultural appreciation. I will suggest that Latinos find it much easier to keep the 10th Commandment than most Americans do.

Just a little coveting of the money of others so they can maintain their culture?

It doesn't sound like you think they do to well with

"Six days you shall labor and do all your work"

[Dr. Shane]

Another lack of cultural understanding. In Mexico, there is no welfare or food stamps and the culture is the same. So let's stop the derogatory stereotyping. Latinos do not become content once they immigrate to a prosperous country. Latinos are hard workers. Drive by a field and watch them work. Anyone that can call them lazy has a serious lack of understanding for their culture.

When the Commandment instructs us to work six days that doesn't mean we are to break our back and sweat six days a week. It means we are to do our own work six days a week. Many Adventists do not go to work and punch a clock on Sunday but they wash dishes, mow the lawn, fold clothing and other such tasks. Most Adventist "work" on Sunday. We "work" six days a week. We rest on Sabbath. Just because Latinos do not run the rat race or chase after the end of the rainbow doesn't mean they are lazy or leeching off from society.

[bonnie]

Another lack of cultural understanding. In Mexico, there is no welfare or food stamps and the culture is the same. So let's stop the derogatory stereotyping. Latinos do not become content once they immigrate to a prosperous country. Latinos are hard workers. Drive by a field and watch them work. Anyone that can call them lazy has a serious lack of understanding for their culture.

[bonnie]

Latinos are not a special race of people.No different,not better or worse than any other.Whether they were born in Mexico or those born here or wherever.

As long as you are not harming another you should be able to live as you choose.If you don't speak english and you can find reasonable work,communicate enough so others do not need to pay

for your refusal to learn,speak however you choose. When you are here for a decade and demand a taxpayer paid for interpreter,you are taking rights from others.

Those born here that do not contribute what they can for the support of their families should be denied aid.

Rights are not something you should be able to take from another.One persons rights stop when they start stepping on the rights of others

[Dr. Shane]

The problem comes in when they believe they can come here and work three days a week and watch the chickens peck the dirt.

[bonnie]

You really don't grasp the subject we are discussing. Latinos work three days a week and watch the chickens peck when they are back home in Latin America. They work day and night like dogs when they are here. Many will work 12-hour shifts, seven days a week for an entire season. Then they go home, work three days a week and watch the chickens peck.

[Dr. Shane]

The above is not at all the issue and you know it. It is anchor babies and those drawing welfare.

[bonnie]

Most anchor babies grow up to be tax-paying US citizens. Welfare is an investment in them that normally pays off. Many anchor babies go right back to Mexico after they are born and never collect any welfare. They come back when they are 18 as productive citizens.

[bonnie]

Steven A. Camarota is the Director of Research at the Center for Immigration Studies.

Thirteen years after welfare reform, the share of immigrant-headed households (legal and illegal) with a child (under age 18) using at least one welfare program continues to be very high. This is partly due to the large share of immigrants with low levels of education and their resulting low incomes — not their legal status or an unwillingness to work. The major welfare programs examined in this report include cash assistance, food assistance, Medicaid, and public and subsidized housing.

Among the findings:

* In 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 18) used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children.

* Immigrant households’ use of welfare tends to be much higher than natives for food assistance programs and Medicaid. Their use of cash and housing programs tends to be similar to native households.

* A large share of the welfare used by immigrant households with children is received on behalf of their U.S.-born children, who are American citizens. But even households with children comprised entirely of immigrants (no U.S.-born children) still had a welfare use rate of 56 percent in 2009.

* Immigrant households with children used welfare programs at consistently higher rates than natives, even before the current recession. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for natives.

* Households with children with the highest welfare use rates are those headed by immigrants from the Dominican Republic (82 percent), Mexico and Guatemala (75 percent), and Ecuador (70 percent). Those with the lowest use rates are from the United Kingdom (7 percent), India (19 percent), Canada (23 percent), and Korea (25 percent).

* The states where immigrant households with children have the highest welfare use rates are Arizona (62 percent); Texas, California, and New York (61 percent); Pennsylvania (59 percent); Minnesota and Oregon (56 percent); and Colorado (55 percent).

* We estimate that 52 percent of households with children headed by legal immigrants used at least one welfare program in 2009, compared to 71 percent for illegal immigrant households with children. Illegal immigrants generally receive benefits on behalf of their U.S.-born children.

* Illegal immigrant households with children primarily use food assistance and Medicaid, making almost no use of cash or housing assistance. In contrast, legal immigrant households tend to have relatively high use rates for every type of program.

* High welfare use by immigrant-headed households with children is partly explained by the low education level of many immigrants. Of households headed by an immigrant who has not graduated high school, 80 percent access the welfare system, compared to 25 percent for those headed by an immigrant who has at least a bachelor’s degree.

* An unwillingness to work is not the reason immigrant welfare use is high. The vast majority (95 percent) of immigrant households with children had at least one worker in 2009. But their low education levels mean that more than half of these working immigrant households with children still accessed the welfare system during 2009.

* If we exclude the primary refugee-sending countries, the share of immigrant households with children using at least one welfare program is still 57 percent.

* Welfare use tends to be high for both new arrivals and established residents. In 2009, 60 percent of households with children headed by an immigrant who arrived in 2000 or later used at least one welfare program; for households headed by immigrants who arrived before 2000 it was 55 percent.

* For all households (those with and without children), the use rates were 37 percent for households headed by immigrants and 22 percent for those headed by natives.

* Although most new legal immigrants are barred from using some welfare for the first five years, this provision has only a modest impact on household use rates because most immigrants have been in the United States for longer than five years; the ban only applies to some programs; some states provide welfare to new immigrants with their own money; by becoming citizens immigrants become eligible for all welfare programs; and perhaps most importantly, the U.S.-born children of immigrants (including those born to illegal immigrants) are automatically awarded American citizenship and are therefore eligible for all welfare programs at birth.

* The eight major welfare programs examined in this report are SSI (Supplemental Security Income for low income elderly and disabled), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food program), free/reduced school lunch, food stamps (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes), public housing, and rent subsidies.

Introduction

Concern that immigrants may become a burden on society has been a long-standing issue in the United States. As far back as colonial times there were restrictions on the arrival of people who might become a burden on the community. This report analyzes survey data collected by the Census Bureau from 2002 to 2009 to examine use of welfare programs by immigrant and native households, particularly those with children. The Current Population Survey (CPS) asks respondents about their use of welfare programs in the year prior to the survey,1 so we are examining self-reported welfare use rates from 2001 to 2009. The findings show that more than half of immigrant-headed households with children use at least one major welfare program, compared to about one-third of native-headed households. The primary reason immigrant households with children tend to have higher overall rates is their much higher use of food assistance programs and Medicaid; use of cash assistance and housing programs tends to be very similar to native households.

Why Study Immigrant Welfare Use?

Use of welfare programs by immigrants is important for two primary reasons. First, it is one measure of their impact on American society. If immigrants have high use rates it could be an indication that they are creating a net fiscal burden for the country. Welfare programs comprise a significant share of federal, and even state, expenditures. Total costs for the programs examined in this study were $517 billion in fiscal year 2008.2 Moreover, those who receive welfare tend to pay little or no income tax. If use of welfare programs is considered a problem and if immigrant use of those programs is thought to be high, then it is an indication that immigration or immigrant policy needs to be a adjusted. Immigration policy is concerned with the number of immigrants allowed into the country and the selection criteria used for admission. It is also concerned with the level of resources devoted to controlling illegal immigration. Immigrant policy, on the other hand, is concerned with how we treat immigrants who are legally admitted to the country, such as welfare eligibility, citizenship requirements, and assimilation efforts.

The second reason to examine welfare use is that it can provide insight into how immigrants are doing in the United States. Accessing welfare programs can be seen as an indication that immigrants are having a difficult time in the United States. Or perhaps that some immigrants are assimilating into the welfare system. Thus, welfare use is both a good way of measuring immigration’s impact on American society and immigrants’ adaptation to life in the United States.

Methodology

The information for this Backgrounder is drawn from the public-use files of the CPS. We use the CPS beginning in 2002 because in that year the survey was redesigned and re-weighted by the Census Bureau, including additional questions about use of welfare programs. The survey identifies what the Census Bureau describes as the native-born and foreign-born populations. The foreign-born are defined as persons living in the United States who were not U.S. citizens at birth. In this report we use the terms foreign-born and immigrant synonymously. Immigrants or the foreign-born include naturalized American citizens, legal permanent residents (green card holders), illegal immigrants, and people on long-term temporary visas such as students or guest workers. It does not include those born abroad of American parents or those born in outlying territories of the United States, such as Puerto Rico, who are considered U.S.-born or native-born. We also use the terms native, native-born, and U.S.-born synonymously. Prior research indicates that Census Bureau data like the CPS capture the overwhelming majority of both legal and illegal immigrants. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Immigration Statistics estimates that the undercount of immigrants in Census Bureau data is about 5.5 percent. Most of this undercount is of the illegal immigrant population. The undercount of illegal immigrants specifically is thought by DHS to be 10 percent.3

The CPS collected in March of each year oversamples minorities and is considered one of the best sources of information on immigrants. The March CPS is also referred to as the Annual Social and Economic Supplement of the Current Population Survey (ASES). The ASES includes questions on use of major welfare programs and is one of the only sources of information available on differences in immigrant and native use of welfare programs. When we examine use rates by state we combine two years of data (e.g., 2009 and 2010) to get more statistically robust estimates for smaller states.

The eight major welfare programs examined in this report are SSI (Supplemental Security Income for low income elderly and disabled), TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), WIC (Women, Infants, and Children food program), free/reduced school lunch, food stamps (now called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), Medicaid (health insurance for those with low incomes), public housing, and rent subsidies.4 These programs constitute the core of the nation’s welfare system.

Why Welfare Use by Households with Children? We concentrate on welfare use for households with children because the nation’s welfare programs are designed specifically to provide assistance to low-income households with children. However, we also provide statistics for all households and for those without children. Examining welfare use by household means that we are primarily comparing welfare use by immigrants and their young children to welfare use by natives and their young children. Some advocates for expansive immigration argue that this type of analysis understates the benefits of immigration because some day the children who receive welfare may pay back that money as taxpaying adults. But, they argue, this payback is not counted because once these U.S.-born children reach adulthood they are counted as natives. There are a number problems with this argument. First, as we will see, households comprised of only immigrants, with no U.S.-born children, have similarly high use rates. Thus, the presence of U.S.-born children does not explain the high overall welfare use of immigrant households.

Second, a large body of prior research has examined the fiscal impacts of immigration, including their use of public services by household. Perhaps the largest study of its kind was done by the National Research Council in 1997. The NRC states, “Since the household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed and taxes paid, it is the most appropriate unit as a general rule and is recommended for static analysis.”5 Because this report is focused on the static, or current, use of welfare, it makes sense to report use by household. In their study of New Jersey, Deborah Garvey and Thomas Espenshade also used households as the unit of analysis because “households come closer to approximating a functioning socioeconomic unit of mutual exchange and support.”6 Borjas and Hilton, in their 1996 examination of welfare use by immigrants and natives in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, also relied on a household-level analysis of immigrant and native welfare use.7 The Census Bureau has itself reported welfare use for immigrant and native households.8 A more recent study from the Heritage Foundation, “The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. Taxpayer,” also reported use of welfare programs by households.9

The primary reason researchers have looked at households is that eligibility for such programs is based on the income of all family or household members. Or, as the aforementioned NRC study observed, “the household is the primary unit through which public services are consumed.” Thus, a child can only be enrolled in Medicaid or free/reduced school lunch if the total income of his or her family or household is below the eligibility threshold. Moreover, most welfare benefits can be consumed by all members of the household. Food purchased using WIC or food stamps is available to anyone in the household as a practical matter. Likewise, public housing subsidies benefit everyone who lives in the housing unit. Again, this is part of the reason the total income of all those who reside in the household is used to determine eligibility.

Though obvious, it is also important to remember that money is fungible. If the government provides food or health insurance to children, then their parents will not have to spend money on these things, allowing them to spend it on other items. This is a clear benefit to parents. Finally, the CPS is collected by household. Like almost all other government surveys, the CPS is a “survey by proxy.” This means that one person in the household responds to all the questions about each individual in the household. Thus the primary unit of analysis in the CPS is the household. It is the basis on which data is collected.

It must also be remembered that the comparisons in this report are between native and immigrant households with children. As such, we are comparing welfare used by immigrants and their children with welfare used by natives and their children. The findings show that a much larger share of immigrants are unable to support their children and turn to the nation’s welfare system to support themselves or their children. This would seem to be an important finding in itself because it is an indication that our immigration system is allowing in immigrants who are not able to support their own children.

It is also worth noting that any hoped-for tax benefit from the U.S.-born children of immigrants when they reach adulthood is a long way off. Therefore, even if this benefit does exist, it does nothing to offset the fiscal costs created by their welfare use at the current time. Finally, if receipt of welfare by the U.S.-born children of immigrants should not be considered because some day the children may pay the money back as taxpayers, then the same must also be true for welfare programs used by the children of the native-born. A large share of welfare costs (cash and non-cash) in this country is for children. If welfare received by children should not be counted as a cost because someday the child may pay it back, then many of the costs of the welfare system should not be counted. Of course this makes no sense. Taxpayers and public coffers are out the money spent on children and the costs are real. Arguing that the child of an immigrant, or a native for that matter, may possibly pay the money back some time in the future does not change this fact. Given the reasons listed above, most researchers who have examined welfare use have done so by household. We follow this generally accepted practice in this report.

Unreported Welfare Use. Although almost all other researchers in this field have relied on self-reporting in the CPS or some other government survey, one limitation of this approach is that it understates welfare use. It is well established that respondents to the CPS tend to understate their use of social services. One reason for this seems to be the survey by proxy methodology used to collect the data, which is discussed in the methods section of this report. While the methodology is practical and generally produces reliable information, it has its problems. One problem seems to be that the person responding to the CPS may not be aware of all of the programs or the size of the payments that are received by every individual in the household.

The problem of under-reporting of welfare is well known by the Census Bureau and has been studied for some time.10 For example, a comparison of administrative data on Medicaid to the results in the CPS shows that the survey reports at least 10 million fewer persons on the program than there actually are.11 Use of cash and food programs is also under-reported in the CPS. This problem, however, should not prevent comparisons between immigrants and natives because there is no clear evidence that immigrant or natives are more likely to under-report welfare use.12 So the undercount should be similar for both groups, making comparisons possible. What this does mean is that the welfare use reported in this analysis is too low, and the actual use rates for immigrants and natives alike are higher.

Findings

Overall Use Rates. Figure 1 shows the share of immigrant- and native-headed households with children (under age 18) using at least one major welfare program from 2002 to 2009. Overall, the figure shows that immigrant households with children have used welfare programs at consistently higher levels than natives for most of the last decade. In 2001, 50 percent of all immigrant households with children used at least one welfare program, compared to 32 percent for native households. By 2009, that had grown to 57 and 39 percent, respectively. Figure 1 also shows that the rate for Hispanic immigrant households with children is much higher than that for native households and immigrants generally.

[bonnie]

Anchor Babies

By Wayne Lutton

The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, quoted in the box on this page, was ratified in 1868 as a measure to grant citizenship to recently freed black slaves. However, it has been interpreted by the Congress as extending citizenship to anyone born within the geographic limits of the United States, even if the individual's parents are not citizens or legal residents.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

- The U.S. Constitution

Amendment Fourteen

Section 1 Popularly known as the "citizen-child loophole," this curious provision of U.S. law is used every year by tens of thousands of illegal aliens to obtain instant U.S. citizenship for their newborns. By mid-1995, the number of citizen-children who had been born to illegal alien parents was conservatively estimated at over one million.1 The citizen-children are automatically entitled to all of the benefits available to Americans, and, upon reaching the age of 21 years, can legally sponsor their parents and siblings for citizenship. This is why they are known as "anchor babies" - a child making it possible for an entire family to gain entry into the United States and its social welfare programs.

As illegal aliens, the parents of such children could be reported to federal authorities and potentially face deportation. However, deportations rarely occur. Indeed, being the parent of a new citizen-child is often cited as a legal argument to avoid such action. "In the last 10 to 15 years, I can't remember a case (of deportation of parents)," observed Peter Nu�ez, U.S. Attorney for San Diego during the Bush administration.2

Along the Texas-Mexican border, pregnant Mexican women frequently use the services of midwives (parteras) on the U.S. side who, for anywhere from $200 to over a $1000, provide women with delivery care, as well as U.S. citizenship forms and supporting documentation for their infants. From Matamoros, Mexico, pregnant women often simply take a taxi across the international bridge to deliver their children in Brownsville, Texas. One popular midwife, 48-year-old Trini Saldivar, freely conceded to a Los Angeles Times reporter that "the prospect of instant citizenship is the lure that draws many of her patients across the border."

"Mexicans who cannot afford American immigration lawyers after their kids are born go to American parteras before their kids are born," Professor Margarita Tagle of Texas A & M University explained. Between Brownsville and Laredo, 140 parteras are doing business - about one per mile. In 1995, 259 midwives were licensed in Texas.3 Should complications arise, women are taken to local public hospitals, where they are cared for at U.S. taxpayer expense.4

California Governor Pete Wilson pointed out in 1994 that there was an alarming jump in the number of citizen-children on Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). Between 1988 and 1993, the number of citizen-children in California receiving AFDC increased fourfold to about 12 percent of the state caseload. A report by the California Department of Health Services found nearly 96,000 babies were born to illegal immigrants in 1992, with their medical care costing the state $230 million.5 A 1993 cost-benefit study prepared by Louis Rea and Richard Parker of San Diego State University found that 41 percent of the estimated 5,800 citizen-children born in San Diego County in 1992 immediately went on welfare. A year later, about 34 percent of them were still receiving benefits. Such welfare cases in San Diego were estimated to cost taxpayers $18.7 million per year.6 By 1995, there were over 114,000 citizen-children living in Los Angeles County.

The system is open to fraud. A state-funded Orange County (CA) study found 62 percent of the claims in citizen-child cases were fraudulent. Some parents were earning money without reporting their income, or were using counterfeit documents."...the Fourteenth Amendment's citizenship clause pertains only to the children of those legally admitted to permanent residence."

Others were not even living in California. "They were getting checks laundered by friends and family. When we checked with schools, often the child wasn't in the country," reported Angelo Doti, director of financial assistance for Orange County.7

Last year, in the largest such case in INS history, four midwives in Brownsville and San Benito, Texas pleaded guilty to filing fraudulent Texas birth certificates for 1,500 children actually born in Mexico. Making $800 to $1,200 for each birth certificate they falsified, the network of midwives operated profitably from 1988 to 1994.8 However, midwife-assisted birth registrations are rarely checked. There are virtually no safeguards to prevent a midwife from inventing a child's U.S. address.

The United States is one of the very few countries basing citizenship on the mere fortuity of having been born here. The overwhelming majority of countries base citizenship on the legal status of the parents. [see the chart on page 16.]

[Dr. Shane]

That current law is a crock as you well know. Mothers are very rarely deported.

You're wrong again. Trust me. I live on the border. Mexico is 12 miles down the road.

I dated a Mexican girl when in college (in Minnesota). She was an illegal She dumped me for another guy. He was also an illegal They had two babies together. Both of her parents were legal US residents. She also had a few siblings that were legal US residents. Both her and her boyfriend got deported over 10 years ago now. She now teaches English in Mexico. Both of her babies are US citizens and can move to the US when they are 18. Her case is not an isolated case.

Don't listen to the TEA Party loud mouths spewing hatred, prejudice and lies.

[bonnie]

You're wrong again. Trust me. I live on the border. Mexico is 12 miles down the road.

[Dr. Shane]

Do a little research on how often that happens. Why would they care if deported, take their babies with them.Y ou have said most have their babies and go home anyway.

If I typed "most" that was a mistake. I should have used the word "many". That I know to be true. Many come here to give birth and go home. If you lived on the border you would know how many thousands come and go everyday. The Wal-Marts located near an international bridge often have more than half the cars in the parking lot with Mexican plates on them. Mexicans come and go everyday. Pregnant Mexicans often stay long enough to give birth before going home.

Last year one of my wife's friends was deported. She had an anchor baby who stayed here with the baby's father (not married to my wife's friend). It happens all the time.

[bonnie]

I have a nephew married to a legal,you know,one that talks funny.

They live in AZ.While that may not be the border you are expert in,both my nephew and his wife will tell a much different story than you do.It is not the rosy picture you paint of mothers of anchor babies come here,have baby and then mom and baby go home.

The Tea Party doesn't need to tell them anything about their personal experiences.My neighbor,the legal Mexican would not recognize any reality in "your Facts" such as they are.

Deportation cannot be that big of a threat.Not when my brother was cautioned not to bring up the illegal status of the father that was fighting for custody or his somewhat checkered past since coming to the US. It would go against him rather than the father. Yet had there been the same things in my brothers past that was fair game.

The older brother that my brother did not adopt jumped back and forth between Mexico and the US,all the while being supported by

the american taxpayer.The fourth child remained here at taxpayer expense

Now there are two more babies being taking care of by the taxpayer

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Do a little research on how often that happens. Why would they care if deported, take their babies with them.Y ou have said most have their babies and go home anyway.

If I typed "most" that was a mistake. I should have used the word "many". That I know to be true. Many come here to give birth and go home. If you lived on the border you would know how many thousands come and go everyday. The Wal-Marts located near an international bridge often have more than half the cars in the parking lot with Mexican plates on them. Mexicans come and go everyday. Pregnant Mexicans often stay long enough to give birth before going home.

Last year one of my wife's friends was deported. She had an anchor baby who stayed here with the baby's father (not married to my wife's friend). It happens all the time.

The world does not start and stop at your doorstep.

MN has a very high rate of Hispanics on welfare and many,many are anchor babies.

I am sure there are some that are deported.That is a risk they seem to willingly accept.Your wife's friend should have had baby and went back as you claim they do.

Being that most of them do that why the big fear of deportation?

[Dr. Shane]

Fear of deportation is among those that choose to stay here. Many come and go back.

[Dr. Shane]

I have a nephew married to a legal, you know,one that talks funny.

Did he force her to learn English or did he learn how to talk funny like her?

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

I have a nephew married to a legal, you know,one that talks funny.

Did he force her to learn English or did he learn how to talk funny like her?

She has a accent and no, other than a few words he has not learned her native language.

She learned english because she had a daughter to support and did not want welfare.

Both my nephews wife and my DIL consider themselves Americans,they came by choice.That is why they speak english,so maybe you can stop with your snide implications such as using force in speaking english.

I know you cannot quite grasp that you are not the first and last word on this issue

[bonnie]

Could you show some examples of the TEA Party loud mouths spewing hatred, prejudice and lies? Not your interpretations either.

Then perhaps we could compare to some of your statements including the implications and statements you have made concerning myself

[Dr. Shane]

She has a accent and no, other than a few words he has not learned her native language.

So she learned his language but he didn't learn hers? And they live in a border state? Hmmm, that doesn't speak well of him. Is he closed minded? Is he a male chauvinist? Do her parents speak English? Can he speak with them? Can their children speak with their grandparents, aunts, cousins and uncles?

[Dr. Shane]

Could you show some examples of the TEA Party loud mouths spewing hatred, prejudice and lies?

Just tune into conservative talk radio. They have callers call in all the time.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

She has a accent and no, other than a few words he has not learned her native language.

So she learned his language but he didn't learn hers? And they live in a border state? Hmmm, that doesn't speak well of him. Is he closed minded? Is he a male chauvinist? Do her parents speak English? Can he speak with them? Can their children speak with their grandparents, aunts, cousins and uncles?

Who it doesn't speak well of is you. She learned "his" language when she came to this country. Not because of him,she did not know him then,but because she was now an American. The support of her daughter in her new country was important to her,she did not want to rely on charity of others.She felt it important to be able to have the skills necessary to do that.

I don't know if her parents speak english or not,that was not a requirement before their marriage.Anymore than it would have been had my nephew gone to Mexico to live and demand they all speak english simply because he was now there.

Is he a male chauvinist? You would ask that why? Because his mexican wife speaks english? Because his mexican wife saw the importance while becoming an american to learn to speak english? Because she did so as to not be a burden to her new country? Because she did not demand her new country,one she came to willingly, adopt her culture and language? Or because it goes against the "gospel" of Shane?

The daughter speaks her native language with family members but speaks fluent english.Which she uses with american friends

and in school.A interpreter is not hired on her behalf.

My DIL has the same outlook.She came here willingly and does not expect everyone to learn Russian because she did.

Their children while young, understand a smattering of her native language and really don't have much interest in learning. My DIL introduces words to them but for her the main thing is that they are americans.That they not be a burden to american society. Neither of the women think their heritage makes them unique and special in anyway,demanding others bow to their refusal to learn.

Just let me know if you have any other righteous judgments about people and their lives you don't know anything about.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

Could you show some examples of the TEA Party loud mouths spewing hatred, prejudice and lies?

Just tune into conservative talk radio. They have callers call in all the time.

I am not really interested in a general answer about some faceless callers on talk radio.

You have made specific accusations,you have made some not to subtle accusations concerning me.

Now you should be able to produce specific incidences of the TEA Party loud mouths spewing hatred, prejudice and lies?

At least you remain consistent with your loud mouth spewing hatred, prejudice and lies?

[bonnie]

So she learned his language but he didn't learn hers? And they live in a border state? Hmmm, that doesn't speak well of him. Is he closed minded? Is he a male chauvinist? Do her parents speak English? Can he speak with them? Can their children speak with their grandparents, aunts, cousins and uncles?

Personally, when any man starts this type of talk and implies he is anything but,it is "He protests to much"

Especially if it is a man that starts slinging accusations he refuses to back up and passing judgments on others he does not know.Some men are far to controlling to have their omnipotence

questioned.Doing so usually leads to condemnation or worse.

My dad always said to be careful of those that have to tell you they are christian. If they are,you will know without a word being said,they will not be able to hide it. I think it holds true in most area's of life.

Unless a man is a male chauvinist himself he would not have any reason to question anyone else based on what has been said.

Male chauvinists are usually petty minded people,just for the sake of insulting,make unsubstantiated implications and statements that cast doubt on another while trying to make themselves look good