Why the defensiveness? It looks to me as if M. Hamza asked a legitimate question.
As for your last question... It's very relevent how Malkin's parents became residents here, since she is one of the most rabid critics of most immigrants to this country -both legal and illegal.
Anyway, from what I've heard, Malkin was born in the US while her parents were on an "extended vacation." Her American birth later made it easier for them to become legal residents here. It's funny that an Asiatic woman who was born in this way loves to throw around the term, "anchor babies," when she most likely could be one herself.
"Anyway, from what I've heard, Malkin was born in the US while her parents were on an "extended vacation.""
What you heard was wrong. Michelle's parents were here on a work visa.
"Her American birth later made it easier for them to become legal residents here. "
They were already legal residents long before Michelle was born, and what made that easier was the fact that from 1898-1946, the Phillipines was a commonwealth of the United States which means before, during, and after the war, Filipinos were legally American nationals. (And her Grandfather fought under General MacArthur). Which means that Malkin is NOT an "anchor baby."
bm: Do have proof of this? & what relevancy does her grandad fightin under MacArthur matter?
I too have read they were here on a temp work visa, then when she was born she anchored them to the US. Thus she is an anchor baby as she delayed their departure & alter helped them get a permanent visa.
Maybe it would be good for you to open your eyes and see that she is telling it like it is----maybe you don't like her honesty, it's a shame our government isn't open and honest with us like she is. Someday you'll find out the truth in what she says-it's coming.
Josh: ' bm ' has set no record straight. Michelle Maglalang's parents were in the US on visas ( student visa ? work visa ?we don 't know ) THEY WERE NOT CITIZENS. Michelle Maglalang is herself an anchor baby.
Josh: No influx. These questions have always been asked. & they are right to be asked since Malkin says many problem are because of immigrants , & stated that "citizenship is to precious to be wasted on anchor babies", of which she is one.
What is pathetic is the viritrol Malkin states. She put those high school students ( who were against army recruiters @ their school) names, addresses, emails, & phone #s on her website, then was outragedd when her name, address, phone, was put on the internet!
I respectfully disagree. Her argument stands on the facts and her own personal background is irrelevant. Everyone in this country with the exception of Native Americans are immigrants, but our country should be careful who we admit. We should do our best to only admit hard working, tax paying people. There is too much abuse of the immigration/welfare system by third-world people who have no business here.
josh: Facts, that facts? Michelle's personal background IS relevant! She herself is an anchor baby. So if we are to begin mass deportations, she needs to go back to the phillipines with her parents.
The true americans are the native american and african americans; as afram were born here & truly built this country thru the horridness of enslavement.
"third world".. wow, you saying this show me you mentality. The correct term is developing countries. If the US and its barbaricness hadnot gone from continent to continent raping, infecting, killing, & stealing humans, Im sure these countries wouldnt be developing, they would be developed! Afr labor built the US, Asian labor built the railroads, asian & indo( bangladesh, pakistan, indian, etc) buitl & continue to built the tech industry!
So if you are anti immigration abuse fine; since the maglalangs abused it they need to be put on a flight to cebu/manilla.
Proof of what? That the Phillipines was an American commonwealth from 1898-1946? Thats a historical fact. Or that people who are residents of an American commonwealth are by law American citizens? That too is a historical fact. Do you have any proof that her parents applied for F1/F2 visas so that they could have a child in the US, thereby proving your claim that shes an anchor baby who delayed her parents departure (and whats the date of that supposed departure that was supposed to take place? You dont know), and helped them get a permanent visa? No, you dont have any proof.
"I too have read they were here on a temp work visa, then when she was born she anchored them to the US. Thus she is an anchor baby as she delayed their departure & alter helped them get a permanent visa."
She can't be accurately called an anchor baby. The term refers to an illegal alien who enters the US to have a child so they can gain US citizenship for their child and future immigration benefits for themselves.
Her parents were in the US legally (her Father was a physician in training who was here with an employee sponsored visa) and no evidence they applied for their F1/F2 visas so they could have a child in the US. No evidence any of her family members are in the US illegally and even if they were not an issue unless she was supporting their illegal residence--e.g harboring them. She was born in the US. You cant deport her or any member of her family because they're citizens, all legal and proper.
Old? Yeah, right. Like you heard that argument before I mentioned it here. Face it, you didnt know that info until I brought it up.
"Too bad it doesnt count"
Riiiight. Doesnt count,. And from what rule book did you pull that from? The so called "commonwealth excuse" destroys your claim of "anchor baby" completely. And you cant dismiss it with a wave of your hand. No matter how hard you try, that little fact is not going to go away.
"At the time that the Phillippines was a commonwealth was NOT the time of Michelle's birth."
Ah, the old strawman. I NEVER said it was a commonwealth during Michelles birth. It was during the birth of her parents and grandparents. I already pointed out that it was a commonwealth up until 1946. I never claimed that Michelle was born before that. (strawman argument from wiki: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.")
"MICHELLE's definition of an anchor baby is a baby born to a NON US CITIZEN, illegally here or legally here"
Wrong. That is not Michelle's definition. That's your definition. Michelle's definition of an anchor baby is a baby born to illegal aliens. Not to people legally here, even if they're not US Citizens.
From Michelle: "countless 'anchor babies' delivered by illegal aliens on American soil, undermines the integrity of citizenship-not to mention national security"
"Michelle is an anchor baby. "
Michelle was born to parents who were born in an american commonwealth. Hence she was born to US citizens (today her Father is a Pediatrician in New Jersey). And the term anchor baby refers to babys born to non us citizens who are here illegally only. Not legally.
By the way, I just noticed something. In your posts you keep refering to "here" as in here in the United States. "born here" "are here", etc. Yet your profile says your location is not "here", but in Nigeria. Could you clarify where you are from?