How so? They don’t get any special benefits, to the best of my knowledge until their adult child sponsors them. The idea of an anchor baby in the us is a complete myth.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/th...

My friend, my parents are in US and their case got strong when they said my step brother was born in US and they had to be around for his upbringing.

I am not going to read any newspaper article when I have a living proof in my family.

And it wasn’t easy other. They had to wait 18 years before they got naturalized.

What on earth does “got strong” mean? Is it a section of the immigration and nationality act? 18 vs 27 years is just situational, it’s a range. When someone says “leveraging their ward” they mean days/months or a dedicated process not supporting evidence in the standard two to three decade process. And sure, why read evidence I found for you when you have your gut and a single anecdote.

Clearly you have lost track of the argument you have put forth. I decided to countenance your WP article and it seems you can't get illegal immigration outta your head. A sentence in your own article reinforces my statement about H1B workers leveraging their US born kids citizenship for their own citizenship.

You even missed out on the basic fact that I am talking about legal immigration and "anchor baby" is a term used pejoratively in reference to immigrants who have dubious intentions. H1B is for highly skilled workers who have proved their mettle even before immigrating.

And for your kind information, what you call "single anecdote" is called "precedence" in legal terms and carries huge weight in future course of action

“Parents can later leverage the citizenship of their progeny to gain theirs.”

No, they can’t - not in anything resembling a reasonable timeframe. The only benefit they gain is the ability to have their child sponsor them once they are adults. It takes 18 years to become an adult, 1 year to petition for a green card and 5 years to get citizenship for a bare minimum of 24 years. I said 27 because I used 21 years of age to calculate. That’s not a benefit really, taking into account the fact the children have to pay taxes for that whole period while living abroad. Then the child has to want to live in the US, move there and sponsor their parents at their sole discretion.

The idea parents get massive benefits for having a child in the US is an “anchor baby” in colloquial terms, pejorative or not. It applies colloquially to legal and illegal immigrants - and so does the family reunification visa process. The idea of an anchor baby is a myth.

Your single anecdote is not outweighed by facts, it’s not precedent unless it happened in court (the whole immigration process is almost entirely discretionary and capricious, you can be denied or delayed for any reason, and you have almost zero recourse because you as a foreigner have no right to immigrate to the US except by asylum — and no amount of “my parents got in” is going to change the mind of a consular officer or immigration judge). You didn’t read the article I sent you, you bragged about it, and you’re still wrong.

>>You didn’t read the article I sent you, you bragged about it, and you’re still wrong.

I don’t respond to people who make preposterous assumptions about others. Your entire answer is laughable at best and I won’t dignify such mediocrity with my reply.

You have a good day, Sir!

“I am not going to read any newspaper article when I have a living proof in my family.” ...

>>I decided to countenance your WP article ...

Do you even peruse the rejoinder's properly?