The latest assault on free speech by the PC police (oops! I guess I just gave away my own bias) is to try to vilify the term “anchor baby” for a baby born on US soil to an illegal alien mother. Is this term really offensive? Or is it just neutrally descriptive? Do you think it should be avoided? And if so, what would be the preferred term to distinguish such a tyke from the offspring of bona fide US citizens?
One of many trending articles on the topic:
It depends on whether the speaker intends to suggest that the only or primary reason for the baby’s conception and birth was to circumvent the immigration rules - in which case it would be pretty offensive to suggest you know better than the parents.
Why would you wish to, and why would such a child be a “tyke” and the “offspring of bona fide US citizens” not?
It’s like the old debate about labelling children as “bastard” or “illegitimate”. For most practical purposes it made no difference what their parents’ circumstances were, so there was no need for the term.
If this is a debate about whether citizenship should be based on “ius soli” or “ius
sanguinis”, then it can be conducted without demeaning the children involved, surely?
The very article you linked to says why this cannot be the case:
So it’s not descriptive, because it doesn’t describe anything. At its absolute best if you ignore all the attitudes behind the term and the people who use it, it’s neutrally ignorant.
Anchor baby,
Win a ticket over the sea
For me
Been an awful bad girl
Anchor baby
So hurry up my “chimney” tonight.
Anchor baby,
A right of lifelong residence too
Will do
I’ll be good to you dear
Anchor baby
So hurry up my “chimney” tonight.
Think of all the fun I’ve missed;
Think of all the boring creeps I’ve gone and kissed;
Next year I could be twice as bad
If it gets me on a housing list!
Anchor baby,
One little thing that I really need
The deed
To a walking gold-mine,
Anchor baby,
So hurry up my “chimney” tonight.
Anchor baby,
Forgot to mention one little thing,
A ring
From a gullible clown,
Anchor baby,
So hurry up my “chimney” tonight,
Hurry up my “chimney” tonight,
Hurry up my “chimney” tonight… hurry!
Not at all. Those who wish to vilify it place the blame on the baby when they should be placing the blame on the parents. All good americans recognize any baby born in america is american. By constitutional right, that baby is as american as any other. The parents are the ones who should be shamed.
Nobody’s vilifying the term, it’s just incorrect. The correct term for what people call “anchor babies” is “American citizen”, and most of those who use it know it. That they choose to use the incorrect term reflects on the character of the user.
Lalo Alcaraz’s use of the term for his Anchor Babies News is cute. Other than that I have little use for the term.
I understand your position, but you are being deliberately obtuse. A 57 year old woman in Cheyenne, WO is also an American citizen. An “anchor baby” is one born of illegal immigrant parents who use the baby’s American citizenship to allow them increased access to U.S. society. We cannot use the generic term and ensure that we are referring to the latter issue under debate.
The question was: if the term “anchor baby” is offensive, then what term should we use to describe the situation we are talking about. “American citizen” doesn’t reach that level of specificity.
I’ve never thought about the term before and have no opinion about it one way or the other, but I don’t think you understand what free speech means. It doesn’t mean ‘I get to say anything I want and no one should ever call me on any of it!!’ It means the *government *can’t stop you saying things (with some very narrow exceptions).
Unless you’re getting arrested or otherwise silenced by the government for saying ‘anchor baby’, free speech has nothing to do with it.
Ultra Vires, how about simply describing that specific case, when referring to it, as opposed to trying for some shorthand that risks making it sound like a child of irregular immigrants must be suspect of being a mere ploy.
What situation? I contend that the one you’ve described is wholly imaginary, so you may as well call the baby Lex Luthor or some shit. If that’s not what you want us to call the baby, please provide a specific example so we know that you’re talking about something real, not something born in the fever dreams of xenophobic Americans.
Edit: and even if you can find an actual example of this, what would possess you to think that the baby in the incident needs a derogatory label? I mean, you could try something like, “Victim of immigration and economic policies that are well and truly fucked,” but that doesn’t roll off the tongue.
That’s some mighty good long-term planning going on, then, since, IIRC, minors (generally) cannot sponsor anyone into the US.
p.s. Isn’t WY the digraph for Wyoming
Why does anyone need to specify? DO they think these children are somehow not as good as other US citizens and shouldn’t have the same rights?
If a well off European couple decided to have a child in the US to allow them the benefits of US Citizenship, they wouldn’t call that an “Anchor baby”. This can and does happen.
The same way they would never call a white person who lets their VISA expire but stays in the US, which also can and does happen, an “Illegal”. It’s all “Hate the Brown People” nonsense.
No its not. White people can and frequently are referred to as ‘illegal aliens’ when they they stay in the U.S. against immigration laws because that is what they are. What some people can’t seem to wrap their head around is the fact that ‘illegal alien’ is a term that refers to a status in a given point in time, is not a permanent label and it does not just apply to ‘brown people’. You or I can take a trip to France or even Mexico, overstay our limit and we would be illegal aliens there as well at least until we came back into compliance with their immigration laws. Try hanging out in another country long enough to gain the attention of the authorities. You can explain to them how it is all a big misunderstanding and that you are simply ‘undocumented’ and you resent the use of their unpleasant terms.
I believe the OP was referencing a rather effete young reporter who tried to ‘call out’ Donald Trump for using the term ‘anchor baby’ in one of his recent town hall forums in New Hampshire. I am certainly no fan of Donald Trump but I hate namby-pamby reporters that waste people’s time with such nonsense when they could be asking real questions about truly important issues. I had to give the point to The Donald based on his deftly dismissive response.
The ridiculous part about the “anchor baby” term is that not only does a child born in the U.S. not give his/her parents any right to stay in the U.S., or sponsor his/her parents to immigrate until the child turns 21. It’s that if the parents have been in the U.S. illegally for 21 years, their child sponsoring them to immigrate isn’t going to help a whit, because they would be ineligible for green cards under current law because of the 21 years of unlawful presence (see p. 2 of the instructions).
There is theoretically a hardship waiver available for the period of unlawful presence, but it is by no means a slamdunk.
Eva Luna, U.S. Immigration Paralegal
Then talk about “anchor parents” or some such, since we all agree that the babies haven’t done anything wrong.
Exactly. Free speech guarantees the right of other people to criticize you, even in unfair ways, when you say something they don’t like.
That isn’t an assault on free speech. It IS free speech.
The kind of person, generally, who would refer to a group of people as “Illegals” as in “These Illegals are what’s wrong with this Country” are talking about Brown People and are racist. “Illegals” is not the same as “Illegal Alien”.
The people I’ve seen complain about this have been on TV, and a number of them have used the term ‘anchor baby’ in the past without complaint. The context in which the term is used is often offensive, but the term itself while less than ideal doesn’t offend me as much as the people using it.
Please give us more, give us the straight dope. I had the strong *impression *that regardless of what the law says on paper, Immigration is highly unlikely to deport the parents of a U.S. citizen who is a kid, because, then what? You can’t deport a U.S. citizen. That citizen is a minor. Do you forcefully take the whole family into custody and throw the kid into foster care or an orphanage?
As I understand it, immigration just **can’t **do that, it would be political suicide. Think about how that looks. Foster parents and orphanages are statistically more likely to mistreat a kid than their biological parents, as far as I know. Think about it looks when the inevitable kid gets abused and his biological parents were sent back to their native country and/or executed there.
If it is factually true that in practice, regardless of what words on a piece of paper say, immigration has far more difficulty deporting the parents of anchor babies…then in fact, the baby is an anchor. Just like an anchor holds a ship from washing away, the baby stops immigration from throwing the parents out. Maybe another term can be used, but it sounds accurate and descriptive to me.
Of course, I heard of a case where immigration kicked out a kid who was taken into the U.S. as a baby and he got a computer science degree and had a productive job. He didn’t even speak spanish, and they basically threw him into Mexico to die in that border camp. That’s pretty ruthless. He did have a felony for something, though (I forgot what it was, it wasn’t great but it was something like felony DUI, not murder)