Jump to content
SilverStormm

Small Talk: Before the Big Talk

Recommended Posts

The Small Talk topic is for:
•    Introductions
•    Off-topic chatter
•    Having virtual tea with forum buddies


This is NOT a topic for actual show discussion. When you want to talk about the show:
1    Figure out the nature of the topic you want to talk about
2    Look for an existing topic that matches or fits
3    If there is NOT an existing topic that fits, CREATE ONE!


Examples of topics that populate show forums include (but by no means are limited to):
•    Character topics
•    Episode topics
•    Season topics
•    Spoiler topics
•    Speculation topics
•    In the Media topics
•    Favourite X topics
•    ...you get the idea


Happy trails beyond Small Talk!

Share this post


Link to post

There was a comment in one of the threads about the phrase "third world" so I decided to grab a quick article about it. It doesn't seem like "Small Talk" but maybe not worth starting a separate thread for it, so I'm putting it here.

I decided to just grab the one from NPR, and here are a couple of quotes that address the comments in the thread, but of course make more sense in context if you read the actual article:

Quote

More than half a century ago, the Cold War was just starting. [Huge snip] The First World consisted of the U.S., Western Europe and their allies. The Second World was the so-called Communist Bloc: the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and friends. The remaining nations, which aligned with neither group, were assigned to the Third World.

Quote

Because many countries in the Third World were impoverished, the term came to be used to refer to the poor world.

This 1-2-3 classification is now out of date, insulting and confusing. Who is to say which part of the world is "first"? And how can an affluent country like Saudi Arabia, neither Western nor communist, be part of the Third World? Plus, the Soviet Union doesn't even exist anymore.

Quote

So we decided we would not use First World or Third World, unless there is reason to do so — referring to past ways of thinking or quoting somebody.

"Developing countries" sounds like it might be a better choice. On the surface, it seems accurate. We're writing about countries that need to develop better health care systems, better schools, better ways to bring water and electricity to people.

This was the first time I remember reading why people found "developing nations/world" offensive:

Quote

So "developing world" seemed to be a good solution. Then I encountered the "developing" haters.

One of them is Shose Kessi, a social psychologist at the University of Cape Town. In an email exchange, she took aim and fired: "I dislike the term 'developing world' because it assumes a hierarchy between countries. It paints a picture of Western societies as ideal but there are many social problems in these societies as well. It also perpetuates stereotypes about people who come from the so-called developing world as backward, lazy, ignorant, irresponsible."

The article discusses other terms and why the different terms are considered offensive and political, but it's way to much to cut and paste. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Christina said:

More than half a century ago, the Cold War was just starting. [Huge snip] The First World consisted of the U.S., Western Europe and their allies. The Second World was the so-called Communist Bloc: the Soviet Union, China, Cuba and friends. The remaining nations, which aligned with neither group, were assigned to the Third World.

And what some people find hard to believe is that by definition, Switzerland, Ireland, and Finland were all also part of the Third World. 

 

I wasn't aware that some find the term "developing nation" offensive, but I did hear that certain world-wide organizations were moving away from its use. Some agencies such as the World Bank are moving away from  using the term "developing nation" is because it's too broad and ambiguous to be helpful to them. Places like Argentina or Malaysia, are very, very different from a country like the Democratic Republic of Congo and are much more "developed," and really shouldn't be in the same category.  I can understand why certain agencies are moving away from the term since they need to address specific issues globally, but for now I think that most people are still using "developing world" when talking about places like Brazil and Hati. I think they also wanted to address the advancement that has taken place in certain countries over the last 30 years as well as the widening gap of wealth and poverty in all nations, not just developing ones. Here's a link if anyone is interested. 

https://qz.com/685626/the-world-bank-is-eliminating-the-term-developing-country-from-its-data-vocabulary/

Edited by Gigglepuff · Reason: spelling error
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

The problem is that the term third world country has nothing whatever to do with a nation's relative wealth.  The term relates to geopolitical alliances during the cold war.  That should not be offensive, and if it has become offensive it is because people are not educated in world history and politics.  Apparently, NPR has chosen to confuse its readers rather than educate them on the proper usage of the term. 

I have a degree in political science, and the term is not offensive but is a term of art to describe political realities. 

Edited by Desert Rat

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Desert Rat said:

The problem is that the term third world country has nothing whatever to do with a nation's relative wealth.

But that is how it's used; the definition has completely morphed into something else, which is what the NPR article was explaining. There are tons of articles out there, though, it's just the one I decided to link. "Third world" has become synonymous with "economically poor country," and hasn't been used to denote a country's alliance during the Cold War for many years, but instead to label a country in financial distress, and is taken as a derogatory/discriminatory term used to say that those countries are at the bottom of the trash heap and "first world" countries are at the top. 

If "third world" is being used to discuss a country's' alliance in a political sense, it wouldn't be offensive, but that isn't what the OP who mentioned the use of the word being incorrect was addressing when he/she first commented (in the Paul thread?). For example, when it comes to the 90 Day Fiance franchise, people are talking about the Americans going to these impoverished areas to find a spouse for reasons that reflect poorly on the Americans, but not that they are going to areas that had no affiliation to the US during the Cold War. Sean and Paul are selecting women that they can control with money, because their areas are so destitute, and the women are willing to put up with the putz's for the same reason.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think that from either way you look at it, the term "third world" has a demeaning connotation. 

One is the whole "are you with us or against us" message.

The other, like has been noted, has an underlying idea of some countries being "the white castle on the hill" that others need to look up to. This approach seems very unfair to me because for many developing countries the reason why they are still developing is because they have been invaded, enslaved and robbed for centuries by the developed nations. Also, if we take the example of the US, where every person has a car, but nobody has universal healthcare and affordable higher education, what category would we place it in?

I understand that a big part and maybe the whole point of this show is to doubt all the foreing spouses' motives and question if they are in it for the green card. Still I believe that this can be approached in a more civilized manner.

It's like calling someone a "second class citizen".

Edited by Ivanova
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

And the irony of it all considering that Paul comes from a state where, in the Appalachian counties, many people live in abject poverty. Some of them have no running water or electricity and their standard of living is lower than some people in developing nations. Sadly, it appears as though life is not getting better for people in some parts of rural Kentucky. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/12/beattyville-kentucky-and-americas-poorest-towns

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/magazine/whats-the-matter-with-eastern-kentucky.html

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Swim mom said:

In conclusion,  if the US were to give everyone free healthcare, like the EU, tomorrow, and impose a vatax or higher gas tax, like the EU, tomorrow, as a whole, we'd likely have about the same standard of living that we have now.

No such thing as a free lunch. I get so freaking aggravated when people talk about how we Americans pay too much tax, we are being gouged by the govt. Then don't think twice about putting their kids on a govt purchased school bus that drives on govt built roads to the public schools their kids attend. And call the police and fire dept when they have an emergency. Where the hell do they think the money comes from to supply those services. Everyone wants something for free, it seems. Personally, I would prefer that money tax dollars go to basic services like healthcare. That way there is no inequity in cost. Why does it make sense that healthcare is attached to employment anyway. It just sets up all kinds of problems like we have now. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

They don't use powerful cars that consume a lot of gas, plus they mostly use public transport, or even bike everywhere, like in Holland. So it's not a big expense. Definitely not compared to healthcare, that's also highly regulated by governments, so a hospital can't charge you 80 dollars for a tylenol. If the US gave people universal healthcare, the living standard would remain the same, no, it would be a life changing improvement for most people who can't afford it now, so why doesn't the US do it. We are not talking about what would be, we are comparing lifestyles in different countries and trying to understand why one is called first world and another third. A prerson may have an outdoor toilet, but their teeth wouldn't rot because fillings are free, things like that. Or won't get diabetes and obesity because gmo and hormones in food is banned in that country.

Edited by Ivanova
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Swim mom said:

I think food and housing are more basic than healthcare. Shouldn't food and housing be free?

Yes, for underprivileged people, and they are, and I hope these programs will not be cut. It's a sign of a healthy society.

25 minutes ago, Swim mom said:

In Germany, for example, a child will be tested in our equivalent of 4th or 5th grade, and will be assigned to one of three secondary schools. One is for university bound students, one is for tradespeople, or lower level university majors

And it's a great example of how your education depends on your hard work rather then on your parent's wealth. You can transition upwards after 5th grade, too, if you get good grades.

Edited by Ivanova
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, poeticlicensed said:

No such thing as a free lunch. 

Health care isn't "free" in the EU.

It's different all over but I can say that approx. 20% is AUTOMATICALLY deducted from my gross salary MONTHLY for "free" health care insurance;

20% for old-age retirement money (min. existence), 20% for taxes. Deductions for unemployment insurance, religion, childlessness, old-age , reunification, ETC. on top.

When you need dental work, glasses, the pill, cancer screening, eye-pressure tests, etc. you have to pay for it, straight up.

Kids from wealthy families always get pushed into University. There are no true grades, it's fixed. It's a scandal that kids get sorted out already in the fourth grade as "blue-collar", "white collar".

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, checker said:

Health care isn't "free" in the EU.

My point exactly. Nothing is for free anywhere. But in the US, people expect services from the govt, like schools and roads, but many  don't want to pay for them. I'm not sure where people expect the $$ to come from for these services, if not for tax dollars. As a government employee, it irritates the crap out of me that we who work to educate your children and respond to your emergency call are treated like we are great big sucks on the poor taxpayer. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, Swim mom said:

I had forgotten that Europe has state funded religions. That's right, religion is a basic right. 

I demand my free religion!

I demand free TV!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Ivanova said:

Yes, for underprivileged people, and they are, and I hope these programs will not be cut. It's a sign of a healthy society.

And it's a great example of how your education depends on your hard work rather then on your parent's wealth. You can transition upwards after 5th grade, too, if you get good grades.

The schools in the EU are based on wealth and family status. Wealthy kids go to the best schools. If the grades aren't good enough, the family pays to get the child in. It's a very corrupt system. 

4 hours ago, Ivanova said:

They don't use powerful cars that consume a lot of gas, plus they mostly use public transport, or even bike everywhere, like in Holland. So it's not a big expense. Definitely not compared to healthcare, that's also highly regulated by governments, so a hospital can't charge you 80 dollars for a tylenol. If the US gave people universal healthcare, the living standard would remain the same, no, it would be a life changing improvement for most people who can't afford it now, so why doesn't the US do it. We are not talking about what would be, we are comparing lifestyles in different countries and trying to understand why one is called first world and another third. A prerson may have an outdoor toilet, but their teeth wouldn't rot because fillings are free, things like that. Or won't get diabetes and obesity because gmo and hormones in food is banned in that country.

If healthcare is so great in the EU, why do wealthy Europeans come to the U.S. for their healthcare needs?  Because the healthcare system in the U.S. is far more advanced and superior to any other.  

Also, guess where the best doctors come from all over the world to train and work?  That's right, the US.  Doctors get the best education and training here and when they are done they stay.  They stay here because the they are not adequately compensated in the EU and other places and the quality and standard of practice is better here. Just ask some doctors. Look that the list of doctors in your state board. A large number are from the EU and other countries.  And then ask them what they think of so called universal healthcare, which is in reality not universal and not very good healthcare. 

Edited by Desert Rat
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

I disagree slightly with you @Desert Rat. The US does have some of the best hospitals in the world, there is no doubt about that. But I don't agree that the overall healthcare system is far more advanced or superior to any other. The problem is the accessibility to those best hospitals and treatment.  Of course the rich from all over the world can afford to fly and be treated anywhere they chose. I lived for years in the UK and worked at three NHS hospitals, one of them being King's. There were tons of wealthy foreign patients who chose to be treated by the doctors there. King's see thousands of international patients every year in their private wings as do other London hospitals. Great Ormond Street Children's hospital also sees many children of wealthy foreign parents. There are plenty of foreign born physicians there who would say that the UK's two-tiered system works best and who heartily criticized the American system. Doctors are well paid in the US, that is very true, but it's not like they're making poverty wages elsewhere. A GP in the UK can still make over $200 K a year, and that's on the low end, no GP there will earn millions but a specialist easily could. 

I think that people who live or work in just about any country are always going to think that their system is the best. Part of it is what we're conditioned to. Also, the US has the one of the lowest overall life expectancies in the Western world, so other countries are definitely doing something better overall. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not going to tell you the actual amount I pay for property tax, because the heads exploding would decimate the posters in this thread. When I moved to the area, I purchased a foreclosure that needed work. Because the area is disadvantaged in the first place, property values were lower to begin with and my home being empty and in need of repair during the last assessment period resulted in a tax bill that I showed my mom (who had lived here for years at that point) and said, "My house is going to be auctioned for nonpayment of taxes because they moved a decimal point on the bill they sent me," and she looked and said, "Nope."

My uncle moved here from New Jersey and bought a mobile home on five acres of land. The mobile homes are taxed differently, but the tax on the land had him confused because he thought it was for a month not a year. He had filled out the Homestead Exemption forms and because he was over 65 and a veteran, the annual tax amount was less than the annual school tax in NJ. Our school tax here is tiny and it shows in the school system, but no one will vote to increase it because they complain about the tax increase, which as I mentioned, isn't anything. My area is a lot of rural land so the farmers would be hit harder than the mere property owners, but you would think they would after reading the annual school reports showing that neighboring counties do better in subjects like science, because our high school (in particular) cannot teach the most recent curriculum since the school doesn't have a classroom that meets code, and there is no where to place another mobile unit. 

Before becoming disabled, I worked as a paralegal doing mostly contract disputes between businesses that required me to read way more tax returns than I would ever want to read and no one who made enough money to have a CPA paid 33% tax and many, if not most, paid less than I did because of the breaks and the legal creative accounting that level of income can provide. Because of this very normal accounting practice, I had the personal tax returns for almost every case that wasn't a straight up dispute over billing, even for S and C corporations, since creditors required personal guarantees if the business made less than $5 million annually. (As an aside, LLCs are not the protection people think they are, especially when they pay personal bills from business accounts; seriously bad idea. Oh, and get a CPA.)

There will never be a unanimous agreement on what taxes should pay. I'm more than willing to pay extra taxes for our schools to be better and don't take the disabled exemption for that reason, but get pissed when people who earned triple my annual income paid less, usually a lot less, on their Federal and State Income Tax.

I worked an hour away from home because the pay was better and I was the sole income for my family. You could always tell when my county ended and another started when driving to work during winter, because suddenly the snow drifts were cleared from the road. We're an economically poor county with no hospital, wells for water, septic tanks for sewage, electric service that goes out during storms several times a year, a river that snakes through the county that floods every time they release the dam to keep the larger city an hour away from flooding, two major grocery stores with a few gas stations stocking groceries as opposed to the regular convenience items because we also have no public transportation including taxi service, one McDonalds and one Subway. Oh, and there are still people who use outhouses because the Federal Government had a credit to build indoor plumbing, but the County would have to match a third (I think) and the taxpayers voted it down. They cannot sell the homes and be considered habitable except to the Amish, so people decided that they didn't want the government telling people how they had to live, even though they were offering the majority of the money for people to have additions and wells put on their homes. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Katy ISD in Katy, Texas spent $70 MM on ONE high school,stadium.  There are schools in nearby Houston that are using 50 year old textbooks and don't have working toilets.  Most affluent parts of Houston have had brand new / upgraded  school buildings. I don't have any kids, and it upsets me no end to see so many kids shortchanged of an education that might help them find their way out of poverty--because they have to attend substandard schools and get a substandard education.

Edited by Arwen Evenstar · Reason: Afterthought
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

I appreciate and get your input @Swim mom. You're right that stats can be skewed, but still, I don't think it's fair to say that other countries don't have good health care and that the American system is far superior to all others. If that were the case, wouldn't other countries have much lower life expectancy at age 65 than other highly developed, industrialized countries?  Remembering back from when I lived in Europe, I recall that some European systems place a lot more importance on preventative and therapeutic treatments than we do. For example, a friend's mother (in Germany) suffered from arthritis, and her pain management plan was not limited to medication. She was provided with a membership to a spa that had hot tubs and saltwater pools, massage therapy, physio, and so on. Here, that sort of spa would require a private membership, but there it was considered to be part of treatment and she and other people who were elderly or disabled benefited greatly. It didn't cure her of course, but still helped to manage her symptoms and it was prescribed for her, right along with whatever medication she was on. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Swim mom said:

@Arwen Evenstar stay safe and keep your head down.

Thanks for the good wishes.  Hoping that if we're going to get as much rain as they think we are that we all get it in slow steady doses so our drainage systems can keep up. It will largely be a rain event for us.  Never seen such widespread flooding forecast for Texas in memory for the 50 years I've lived in the state.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sure someone must have already asked this.  Every Sunday I see a "More to Love" scheduled for 7:00 and I record it.  And every week I get fooled because it's a repeat of last week's show.  Isn't it?  I fast forward through it, and it looks like what I've already seen.  But the show description says it's first-run, premiere, etc.  Can anyone tell me about this?  

Share this post


Link to post

Thanks for starting our day with a good laugh.

Mr. AZC and I are gettin' up in years, and sometimes discuss things about what will happen when one of us is gone.  Whenever we watch this show, we look at each other and solemnly promise that (1) we will not go on dating sites, and (2) if we ignore agreement number 1, we will NOT get involved with people who ask for money or want to move here from other countries.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I once fell down a black hole on a site that posted the back and forths of scammers having the tables turned on them. It was hilarious but a major time waster. When they got the scammer on the hook, they would do things to cost that person time and money, like getting the scammer to wire them money to prove that there was actually an account, since Western Union Shop (TM the story) couldn't find the account. The scams almost all start out the same way, and it is really hard to see how people can fall for them.

When I worked for an attorney, I once read several research papers on how the scams work for business, because we had a few clients that were taken. It is almost the exact same process as the love scams and most of the business owners who fall for them are intelligent and knowledgeable when it comes to business. There were the ones who would be taken by the chance at quick money, like what happens with Ponzi schemes, and talked themselves out of any doubts, but the majority of the scammers were just very good con artists and excellent liars. Any question was met with a plausible answer and the conmen did research on that particular businesses first. 

There is a whole process as it pertains about when you do what to lure the victim in, and after reading one psychologist's paper on the victims of the love cons, I've never questioned how someone can fall for it. Most of the time, the victims are going through a personal crisis, and many had recently lost their long-term partner, typically to death but sometimes just a breakup. The conmen are able to give them hope and something to look forward to, which causes a biochemical reaction that suppresses the biochemical reaction caused by the doubt. After the fact, if the person was honest with themselves, it would be clear as day that they were being conned from the get go. Even after they can no longer lie to themselves about it, the victims have a problem letting go of conman (or woman), because the pull of "better thing" is just so strong. When it comes to business and you are dealing with money as opposed to love, the anger of the betrayal of trust and loss of money is stronger than the pull of the "great opportunity," so the person swindled hits the "stages of grief*" quicker, and doesn't get stuck in the denial stage like in the love scams.

That diatribe aside, when you read the Facebook messages posted in the link above, it is clear that he was a scammer from the first message, and I have to remind myself that someone who fell for it shouldn't be scorned or mocked. Then, those people appear on these shows, and the only possible reaction is snark. There is no question that Mohamed, Lowo, the Filipino who is scamming Larry, and the entire Cortney/Antonio situation are obvious scams, and can't find any sympathy for the entire lot, predators and prey. The appropriate response for the Americans should be the same as the British women in the link, but in those couples, the Americans are predators, too. So, I've decided that anyone who signs up to do a show produced by Sharp Entertainment or that will appear on TLC waive their right to not be judged by me for their stupidity.

Meri from Sister Wives was warned from the very beginning about her catfisher, but even after it was proved to her, she still didn't block the woman who was scamming her. She was completely in love with the fictional character, and if she blocked the number, she lost the link with her fantasy. I was waiting and willing to give her my sympathies for being taken in by a sociopath, even though she was warned and decided to block those people instead. She refused to own up to what happened though, instead deciding to insist that the psycho targeted her to try and break up her polygamist family and that she had no intentions of leaving, proof to the contrary be damned! 

*The "Stages of Grief" module is a hot button issue. Although all psychologists agree that all people grieve differently and not everyone will go through all the stages, many don't agree that there are "stages" at all. I still used it because I think it explains the denial/acceptance "stage" of my point. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

OK. Somewhere on this board, someone posted that we should check out "My Online Bride" on Netflix. Oh. My. God. If you have not, that should be your first priority in your free time. Do nothing else with your free time until you have watched "My Online Bride". It is all kinds of delightfully horrible; a solid 90 minutes of nothing but train wreckage. Damn. TLC needs to take a page out of the playbook of whoever filmed "My Online Bride" because that show is so much better by being so much worse than 90 Day Fiance could ever aspire to be.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, MrSmith said:

check out "My Online Bride" on Netflix. Oh. My. God. If you have not, that should be your first priority in your free time. Do nothing else with your free time until you have watched "My Online Bride"

Wowza.  This just confirms that these men are interested Thai and Phillipino women because "They are beautiful, slim,and take care of the men"

Ick.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

@OoogleEyes Oh, yeah. The whole power dynamic between the men and the foreign women is just slimy and, in my opinion, completely unethical. I was amazed at how unattractive the men were. Only that young guy who banged Tetiana was reasonable attractive. I thought it was horrible how he basically dumped her after having sex with her. That whole industry should really be shut down, in my opinion. It just reeks of human trafficking. If I were single, I could never go that route to find a wife. I would fail because I would actually want to get to know these women and they me; basically like online dating. The way things are with people who use the marriage brokers, it really is just "shopping for girls" (Thank you, David Bowie!) - and the women expect the men to pick one and marry her. It's grotesque and revolting.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 10/9/2017 at 2:40 PM, MrSmith said:

@OoogleEyes Oh, yeah. The whole power dynamic between the men and the foreign women is just slimy and, in my opinion, completely unethical. I was amazed at how unattractive the men were. Only that young guy who banged Tetiana was reasonable attractive. I thought it was horrible how he basically dumped her after having sex with her. That whole industry should really be shut down, in my opinion. It just reeks of human trafficking. If I were single, I could never go that route to find a wife. I would fail because I would actually want to get to know these women and they me; basically like online dating. The way things are with people who use the marriage brokers, it really is just "shopping for girls" (Thank you, David Bowie!) - and the women expect the men to pick one and marry her. It's grotesque and revolting.

He basically came into his own and discovered he was a douche. Tetiana was already way out of his league, but he got it in his head that he could bang even more women so he decided not to commit. Meanwhile it was going to take him years to save up enough money to get back over there. Lots of long, lonely nights sleeping in mum's guest bedroom wishing he hadn't ghosted Tetiana.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'm a unapologetic fan of True Crime TV, and there's one called "Web of Lies" about a guy from Seattle who found a bride from Kyrgyzstan. She came here, got educated, found a job and found friends.

This was wife #2 from the same area. Marriage #1 ended in divorce , and he wasn't going to go through *that* again, so he killed #2. He concocted this elaborate story, but was eventually convicted of murder.

Some of these 90 Day men appear to be mentally unstable, with past criminal histories, I hope these ladies RUN and RUN FAR FAR AWAY. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, OoogleEyes said:

Some of these 90 Day men appear to be mentally unstable, with past criminal histories, I hope these ladies RUN and RUN FAR FAR AWAY.

The problem is that in the eyes of many people men from wealthy countries are automatically considered better and more impeccable than men from their own country. And I don't mean "OK, he's weird, but he has money so we'll cut him some slack." I mean "He is from the US/Sweden/UK/you name it, so he is BY DEFAULT a normal eligible person with good character and no mental issues whatsoever." It's like a faith thing and people have this persuasion without even doubting it. People need to have this belief that there is a magical place where everyone is good and no one hurts each other. Kind of like in The Book of Mormon musical.

Edited by Ivanova
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Major Bigtime said:

This is probably not a rare occurrence.  There is an entire industry of facilitating bringing pregnant women to the United States so they can have their babies - who are instant US citizens upon birth.  They're called "anchor babies"; their mothers are called "birth tourists."  Over 35,000 babies are born to this status annually; they are qualified for government benefits, reduced tuition, etc.  

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×