Your quote from Time, though, isn’t describing what most seem to mean by the term. Time is describing Chinese parents who want their child to have U.S. citizenship and its benefits, with only a “theoretical” chance of sponsoring the parents later.
The common usage of anchor baby, however, defines the primary purpose of the kid is to get the parents citizenship or residence. The Chinese described in the article are all planning to return to China a month or so post-partum. They themselves are in no way being “anchored” to the states.
I agree that the phenomenon exists. It (apparently) encourages rich, successful, intelligent parents to enable the best and brightest from other countries to come greatly benefit the U.S.
Why exactly do we want to turn of the siphon of talent into the U.S.?
Their kids will be US citizens. They can apply for citizenship for their parents once they are of legal age. And it’s an actual thing that (rich) Chinese are doing with this in mind. Here is a YouTube video from China Uncensored that talks about it. Granted, this isn’t for poor or even middle class people, but it is a real phenomena and not ‘a total myth’. And this is just the Chinese. It certainly happens with other groups as well.
Personally, I’m not seeing this as a bug but a feature, and I really don’t see what the problem is to be honest. I have relatives who are ‘anchor babies’ after all. I’m merely pointing out to the OP that it’s no myth. How pervasive it is would be a more interesting question…my WAG is ‘not very’.
It’s a bit disingenuous to say that prohibiting birth tourism is “turning off a siphon of talent.” People born outside the US can always apply for residency and naturalization, and those with talent, education and/or lots of money will generally be admitted.
Not quite. They can apply to sponsor their parents for an immigrant visa once they are 21 AND have income/assets sufficient to support their parents (which means either a stable job or lots of inherited/gifted money). The parents will have to apply for citizenship on their own behalf after they’ve been permanent residents for at least five years and met the other requirements.
This is the part that gets lost in translation. I think an integral part of the “myth” as commonly expressed is lots and lots of poor people using anchor babies to overwhelm the welfare system.
[QUOTE=slash2k]
Not quite. They can apply to sponsor their parents for an immigrant visa once they are 21 AND have income/assets sufficient to support their parents (which means either a stable job or lots of inherited/gifted money). The parents will have to apply for citizenship on their own behalf after they’ve been permanent residents for at least five years and met the other requirements.
[/QUOTE]
Yes…that should have been that they could apply for green cards for their parents. And yes, there is more to it than just having a kid in the US. However, it’s much, much easier to gain US citizenship if you have a relative who is already a US citizen.
Most of the Chinese doing this, of course, have boatloads of money, so that makes it even easier.
Wasn’t in the OP so no idea. As I said, I don’t think this is very pervasive, but saying it’s a myth is simply wrong. It does happen. If the OP is talking about a different myth, i.e. that it’s overwhelming our welfare system then that’s another matter, and I’d say that this aspect is certainly a load of horseshit.
Yes.
Basically, Trump’s favourite people are not coming over the border for the express purpose of having children, and leveraging citizenship. It’s just a side effect of having a life. They certainly are not planning 21 years and 9 months ahead, and don’t have the travel freedom or finances to adjust their plans.
The rich people, however, are doing so. back when I was in high school and college (early 70’s) Hong Kong residents were sending their kids to school in Canada, taking advantage of Commonwealth connections and laxer immigration policies. This was their exit strategy in case the 1997 handover went badly (1970’s were not that great for Communist China). Quite a number stayed and became citizens. a large number went back, but kept roots in Canada and waited to see what happened. I would agree that rich people are definitely looking at the advantages of US citizenship for their kids and potentially for themselves.
(Which brings up the question, what’s the dual-citizenship implications for Chinese citizens?)
So yes, “anchor baby” as a poor illegal immigrant strategy is a myth; but there is a real situation for the rich.
I don’t think we have to pretend, or are pretending, that it doesn’t exist at all. The rhetoric that needs to be quashed, though, is that “If you think of the term ‘anchor baby,’ which is those individuals coming to our country and having their children so their children can be U.S. citizens, there’s 400,000 of those taking place on a yearly basis” (Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, specifically referencing the number of children allegedly born to illegal aliens in the U.S. ).
Maybe there’s 40, or even 400 or 4000, illegal aliens who do so. Even at the upper bound, that’s barely one percent. At that level, we’ve got other, bigger problems to worry about.
My parents employ an illegal immigrant as a housekeeper. Last year she caused a serious car accident (while driving without a DL), and because felony charges were filed, she popped up on USCIS radar. The felony charges were later dropped, but deportation proceedings are nonetheless currently pending. I was told that because she has kids born here in the US, her deportation is unlikely; the kids are culturally American and would suffer if she were deported (either by being separated from or or by being in a foreign-to-them culture if they went back to Mexico with their mom).
According to that, in FY 2013 there were 369k “removals”, of which 235k happened at the border. There is no cite for the 72k I can follow up on, but several places say it was provided by ICE as self-reported by the person being removed during the process. I didn’t see it on their website, maybe someone else will have better luck.
But clearly they are over half of the interior deportations of 134k that year - not one quarter - so it must be some combination of people stopped at the border and those apprehended in the States. But that makes it less than a quarter. We need better numbers to judge what is actually going on.
Regardless, the source of the “Anchor Baby” idea is how the ICE manages resources. There is the concept of Prosecutorial Discretion - basically, why you would just skip removing them. Here are some considerationsfrom 2011:
• the person’s ties and contributions to the community, including family relationships;
• whether the person has a U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse, child, or parent;
• whether the person is the primary caretaker of a person with a mental or physical disability, minor, or seriously ill relative; ;
• whether the person or the person’s spouse is pregnant or nursing;
Important to note, that is 4 of the 19 points of consideration. Having a kid isn’t on the Special/Prompt consideration list except the being pregnant part.
When I was growing up during the 70s-80s, Anchor Baby had nothing to do with citizenship. It was the concept you wouldn’t get deported if you were the sole caregiver of a child who was a US citizen. It was a pretty nasty slur generally directed to our Vietnamese and Hispanic community - generally saying “your only value is keeping your mama in the States” and I am not a fan of its return.
Teacher (big fan of USA! USA!, but more reserved) stated as fact that women would scramble into a US Embassy to deliver their kids because the Embassy was legally, American Soil and the kid would have US citizen status.
How that assertion turned into the current ‘Anchor Baby’ debate, I have neither idea nor desire to know.
The baby doesn’t have to do anything. It’s mere existing does more than “squat” for the parents. No guarantee, but it increases your odds of not being deported. Especially as the child gets older.
The question you asked was:
How did the term anchor baby even come into being?
The answer is:
The belief that having a child in the US keeps the parents in the US. The *baby *born in the US is the *anchor *that prevents the parents from being removed. Until I saw the linked Wiki article, I never thought it was a reference to citizenship for anyone other than the titular baby. They even mention that term is Anchor Child.
Assuming the parent(s) do not have criminal records, it is a possible way to get put in the back of the line for “removal” (they don’t call it deportation) per my cite. There is absolutely no guarantee, which I guess is part of the “myth”, and there are other considerations that could go either way.
Personally, I recall the term when I was growing up - as I mentioned above. It definitely predated the print cite in the Wiki article by at least a decade or so. I believe the “Anchor” came from the fact it was applied to “Boat People” - while language isn’t always sensible, the association is there. All anecdotes so YMMV.
The Wiki article uses the definition for getting US citizenship as “Anchor Child” but that article was the first time I ever heard the term used. I guess you could say an Anchor Baby (if you were rude of course) would become an Anchor Child (if you were rude and crass) but that seems like a really long gamble.
I’m thinking maybe you should post this in Great Debates since you appear to have asked and answered your question. Over there, you could discuss the actual likelihood of such a plan working, what the overall impact would be to immigration enforcement, the concept of jus soli and all kinds of interesting things.
Sorry, I listed the Considerations (page 4) not the Special Considerations (page 5) which require “prompt particular care and consideration”.
Here is the actual section on Special Considerations:
As you can see, the only way an Anchor Baby would work in this scenario would be for the mom, under bullet #5 - but that would be a very temporary thing.
