Of course it’s an offensive term; it’s meant to be. When used it’s purposefully disparaging the kid and its family. Just like “illegal” as a noun is purposefully negative and the insulting nature is intended.
Why should being an illegal immigrant be a protected class/someone we can’t use negative terms against?
Who owns this country? The descendents of citizens who fought for it and the small number who are let in legally every year or whoever manages to sneak in?
The difference between using a racial, ethnic, or derogatory gender slur and saying negative things about a trespassing criminal…is what I just said. Someone can’t help their race/ethnicity/gender. Most illegal immigrants are trespassing criminals. I’ve met some and many of them are decent folks who are trying to scrape by. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t come up with a policy to gain the benefits of having them without all these downsides - but right now they are trespassers and criminals.
I disagree. I never said that this was an assault on the First Amendment. I said it was an assault on free speech. Whenever some person or group tries to tell you “you can’t say that!” they are attempting to put limits on your ability to speak freely, using shame, thuggery, and intimidation, in order to control the narrative. Fortunately, the government has limited ability to do this, or we’d all be fucked.
I’ve just been using the term American citizen.
Having U.S. citizen children can be a positive discretionary factor in some situations, but parents of U.S. citizen children are deported all the damn time.
And as a practical matter, the U.S. citizen children can either remain in the U.S., possibly with other family members, or leave with their parent(s) (and possibly come back later as adults). It doesn’t mean they will end up in foster care.
So what’s the straight dope, then? Are anchor babies a large enough factor to be an “anchor” or not?
Calling them “U.S. citizens” distorts the meaning of what we want to say in favor of appearing more sensitive. Just like calling blacks “African Americans” - it’s a waste of syllables, yes they are Americans, and we don’t mean “they are from Africa”. We mean “their skin is black, and statistically a large portion of black people are different in *these *ways, or the white male good ole boy club may discriminate against them”
A tall, skinny, white blonde girl I knew from South Africa would jokingly call herself “African American” but she knew darn well that 1. It’s not what people mean when they say the words. and 2. She cannot reasonably expect to complain about unfair treatment or ask for affirmative action on institutional application forms.
Of course “anchor baby” is goddam fucking offensive. I was born to immigrants. The use of the term “anchor baby” for anyone anywhere in any situation or context is a direct aspersion on my right to be and consider and call myself and be treated as an American. Anyone who ever speaks the term about anyone deserves to be stripped of citizenship himself or herself and ejected from the country if they can’t prove that none of their ancestors were immigrants to this country.
Do they have to take their babies with them?
Focusing on the plurality of the word “parents” here: Only one of my parents was an illegal immigrant: the other was an American citizen. Do I get to be (have been) an anchor baby, or not?
(Edit: and my mom actually was deported once, but came back across that porous northern border, anyway.)
I don’t fucking care. They can go to hell. It’s not a subject I find funny.
In a word, no. As the term is typically used, an “anchor baby” is a child who, by virtue of having been born in the United States, provides his/her parents with automatic authorization to remain here that they would not otherwise have. It’s a complete fiction.
How blunt do I have to be?
(That was a rhetorical question, by the way.)
Isn’t every american citizen descended from “Anchor babies” one way or another?
The babies are not illegal immigrants. If you want to find some way to insult and demean the parents who came here illegally, that’s one thing. But the babies did absolutely nothing other than being born – they are American citizens. Holding children accountable for the behavior of their parents, and calling them offensive names because of that behavior is wrong.
As others have pointed out, the term anchor babies is also intentionally misleading, implying legal implications that don’t exist.
[QUOTE=Septima]
Isn’t every american citizen descended from “Anchor babies” one way or another?
[/quote]
Not if anchor babies is used to mean a child of illegal immigrant parents. Many Americans are descended from legal immigrants.
Not blunt enough, and you still didn’t answer the question.
As a rule of thumb, there are many things in life that are not guaranteed, but the chance of it working out a certain way is enormously higher. Get a 4.0 at Harvard? You’re gonna get into medical school. Graduate from a top-14 law school? A biglaw job that pays several hundred k is probably open to you. Be good looking? When you go to the bar, you just might get laid.
Anyways, an anchor doesn’t stop a category 4 hurricane from ripping your ship loose. But it does help. If the statistical chance is high enough, the anchor baby is still an anchor.
I’d say that if the change in probability is 50% or higher, the term is true.
That is, let’s say that your chance of not being deported when Immigration comes after you as an illegal is 30%. If it becomes 45% or higher, despite not being “automatic”, that baby is still an anchor. Maybe calling them anchor parents is less pejorative - it’s not the baby’s fault - but that becomes confusing and I do not think we should use less descriptive language just be give the appearance of being more sensitive.
No, because the descendents of legal immigrants did not need to sneak over the border, pregnant and a short period of time from delivering, in order to give birth on the “right” side of the border. That literally sounds like “dropping an anchor”, you can almost imagine the woman standing up while giving birth- though that would be bad as it would drop the baby on it’s head…
If the anchor isn’t an anchor, I’m willing to say we need to use another term, but I have every reason to think that the logistical difficulty of the government finding foster care for a kid…and all the proceedings and paperwork involved…makes the immigration case take a lot longer, de facto acting like a form of anchor.
‘Anchor baby’ is a term for children born in the US by non-citizens specifically for the purpose of having those children be US citizens. Parents may be in this country legally or illegally. The implication is that the parents will try to use their child’s citizenship as leverage for residence themselves. Some people do the same thing by saying they want dual citizenship for their children, which may sound classier, but is actually no different.
That’s a good point - there are people who are lawfully in the USA but do not have de jure “immigrant status” e.g. someone on study or work visas. The “anchor baby” phenomenon would have to apply to THEIR children as well, would it not… In either case, it’s a derogatory term because of the implication that their birth was deliberately arranged to be used as a mere tool for obtaining a benefit (echoes of the “welfare queen” discourse of c. 1980)
I don’t know that anyone has actually collected comprehensive statistics that answer your question. But in my 20+ years of experience in the immigration field, including employment as a Spanish interpreter in Immigration Court, having a child in the U.S. in itself is not going to allow you to stay in the United States, period. Even when coupled with long residency in the U.S. and hardship to U.S. citizen family members, and horrendous conditions in the country of citizenship, and other positive discretionary factors like community service, lack of other negative law enforcement history, etc. I really doubt it’s over 50%. Feel free to prove me wrong.
ETA: for example, some stats on administrative closure of pending removal cases by prosecutorial discretion.. I wouldn’t call 7.16% a slam-dunk, would you? And administrative closure isn’t a path to any permanent immigrationstatus in itself; it’s bureaucratic limbo.
That’s the other implication.
I don’t see anything wrong with the basic concept of people wanting to live in the US. If my grandparents had been in danger of being sent back to Europe I hope they would have had my parents anyway to try and anchor them here. The use of the term now seems to have focused on those who not only want to remain in this country, but to do so expressly for the purpose scamming everyone else, as you say. The logic behind that is non-existent, but there has always been some excuse used by certain people for why we can’t have those people coming here. The welfare claim is just another one of those excuses.
Up until the 1870s (Page Act) for certain ethnic groups, and the 1920s generally, it was almost impossible to BE an illegal immigrant, because the U.S. simply didn’t regulate immigration generally. Any white person capable of walking off the ship was “good enough,” and I think that point needs acknowledging.