I think this is not so simple, but actually rather simplistic. Anyone who is here and working is creating wealth. It seems to be mainly when the economy goes sour that suddenly their largely underpaid, labor-intensive jobs become things that are being "drained" from so many others. They do the jobs, which make for stability and wealth throughout the economy (albeit through great exploitation). They pay sales and consumption taxes. In some cases, they add to labor and social security taxes (there is debate as to just how much, and whether they wouldn't actually create a more satisfactory pool of wealth if granted amnesty).
Taken from Caela in the "Take your job back" thread:
"This I think is a self-perpetuating cycle. Legal citizens don't want to work for farmers that basically pay slave wages and farmers don't want to pay more than what they are already paying. It sets up a system in which people say that no citizen will do the job and that they "need" the illegals to them or it won't get done. In truth, I don't think there is a job out there that some legal citizen won't do, but no one is going to do it for a wage so low they can't afford to buy that cool new video game they want, much less trying to sustain an independent and productive life on your own. It's sort of a catch 22 really."
Finally, if a baby is a citizen under the law -- or if in fact, having one served to keep one legally in the country -- then I don't see how you could fairly call having the baby with such purposes, circumventing the law. It is allowed or it isn't. First attacking them for being illegal, and then for acting in a way that observes the law, is not consistent. Either they are "sneaky" or they are not. Above you are changing the criteria as you go, to suit your own wishes.
There is some controversy to say the least about the term "anchor-baby." Apparently it's also been used shotgun-style as a sort of racist epithet, but aside from that, there are reportedly dubious assumptions. Assuming the citations of government sources in Wikipedia are accurate, I'll quote them for a quick response: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby
Interpreting past legislation out of context with the events that said legislation was formed around allowed Goldman Sachs to distribute nearly 24 trillion in government bailouts to whatever financial institution it saw fit, and without revealing to the american taxpayer who that money went to going so far as to say it was none of our business. The Immigration and Nationality Reform Act of 1965 was a relaxation of immigration policy for European immigrants. The National Origins and Quotas system was phased out because visas reserved for the United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany went mostly unused while there were 'waiting lines' for countries like Italy, Greece, Poland, Portugal, and elsewhere in eastern and southern Europe.(Center for Immigration Studies, Three Decades of Mass Immigration, The Legacy of the 1965 Immigration Act, September 1995)
The new system eliminated the various nationality criteria, supposedly putting people of all nations on an equal footing for immigration to the United States. But Ted Kennedy was quoted on the debate floor for the act he was sheparding having stated: "First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same.... Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.... Contrary to the charges in some quarters, [the bill] will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and deprived nations of Africa and Asia.... In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think.... It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs."(U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization of the Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C., Feb. 10, 1965. pp. 1-3.)