Please help overstay 5 years and married to usc

[Boiler 45,829]

Some people consider the term anchor baby is used in a pejorative way and the fact that you wish to use it in your own context does not detract from that fact. It is what it is. My apologies if someone disagreeing with a word that you use is internalized into you thinking that there is an imminent sling fest.

Irony at its finest.

Just corrected your statement, I am sure you would not want to infer that your opinion was the only one.

[Myopia 93]

Just corrected your statement, I am sure you would not want to infer that your opinion was the only one.

Why would you correct my statement and then tell me that you believe that I wouldn't want to infer that my opinion was the only one.Do you mind read?

You could have just asked me if I thought my opinion was the only one and to answer the unasked (and more appropriate question) No. I don't think my opinion is the only one.

Check it out. An "Anchor baby" was coined by those who felt undocumented women came to the US in order to have a baby so as to confer citizenship to the child. It has never been used in any other way or term. For anyone to call an American child with an American father an anchor baby is offensive to me. I may be the only one who felt offended but thats just how it is.

I get what the poster meant. She felt it was bad form for anyone to suggest that leaving/not leaving her child as a way to make a hardship waiver stronger was inappropriate and used the term "anchor baby" to fortify that opinion. I get that. It is still a derogatory term with negative connotations to me.

Its nothing new for people to use words that most others consider negative and say hey I mean it in this way and its ok. I can think of a number of words like that. Can you?

The OP messed up. She came here on a K1 and didn't fulfill the conditions of that K1. She now has to deal with the very real consequences. I feel for her. I do. Those of us who came here (however we came) on any number of visas may also have overstayed but are able to adjust to legal status.If we were not able to adjust then we would have had to deal with our rightful bans also. She can not do that and to berate her by calling her child an anchor baby is disrespectful in my eyes.

Better?

Edited April 17, 2011 by Myopia

[Boiler 45,829]

Admittedly the term is more commonly used when neither parent is a US Citizen.

But in this case it is a fact that US Citizen child will help the successful filing of a waiver considerably, so the term does not seem out of place.

The child is not a qualifying relative to file the waiver, but the hardships of the child, being separated from that mother can be included in the waiver package.

[LlamaInvasion 76]

Just my personal opinion: The term "anchor baby" is horrid regardless of the situation; it implies that the child was only created and carried to term for the immigrant's own benefits and schemes. And trust me, as a non-citizen currently pregnant with a citizen's child, it's most certainly used even if one parent is a citizen. If I never heard that term again in my lifetime, it will be too soon.

Of course, this is as mentioned just my personal opinion, and I'm biased.

[Boiler 45,829]

It happens.

If Anchor Baby is not acceptable what other description would you prefer.

[LlamaInvasion 76]

It happens.

If Anchor Baby is not acceptable what other description would you prefer.

How about "the OP's child?" "The child that was born to a non-citizen?" "The son/daughter of the poster?" "In this case, the OP having a child could prove advantageous?" "The poster may find that there are solutions involving their child?"

Plenty of ways to describe the situation and give advice without using the "anchor baby" term.

Edited April 17, 2011 by LlamaInvasion

[Fandango 1,439]

The term anchor baby is used in a pejorative way and the fact that you wish to use it in your own context does not detract from that fact. It is what it is. My apologies if someone disagreeing with a word that you use is internalized into you thinking that there is an imminent sling fest.

Irony at its finest.

I wasn't being combative or taking offense at what you said. I was trying to clarify my intent in what I said so there was no confusion as to my intent when I made my post. No sling fest, just clarification

[Fandango 1,439]

Admittedly the term is more commonly used when neither parent is a US Citizen.

But in this case it is a fact that US Citizen child will help the successful filing of a waiver considerably, so the term does not seem out of place.

The child is not a qualifying relative to file the waiver, but the hardships of the child, being separated from that mother can be included in the waiver package.

Exactly. And my comment wasn't directed at the OP, it was directed at those who suggested leaving the baby for the sole purpose of creating a hardship in order to bypass or shorten the ban.

If the OP wants to leave her baby here for other reasons, then the baby has nothing to do with it. But to suggest separating mother and child for the sole purpose of immigration benefit: that's what I find offensive. A baby is not a strategy.

Edited April 17, 2011 by Lisa C

[Boiler 45,829]

You are not living in the real world.

The whole system is a game, the Baby can be a strong card in that game.