Is "Anchor Baby" an offensive term? Why or why not?

[Hail_Ants]

@TriPolar

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.

Are really trying to claim that the idea that there are people coming to America illegally to get free social benefits they can’t get in their own country isn’t true?! Because there are and have been mountains of statistics proving that it is. Regardless of how ‘prejudicially’ someone may want to spin these facts, they are still facts. Ergo, regardless of how prejudicially you use the term ‘anchor baby’ it is an accurate term nonetheless.

[CBEscapee]

@Shagnasty

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.

Actually, here in Mexico you would be considered an "indocumentado. I don’t think a translation is needed.

[TriPolar]

@Hail_Ants

Are really trying to claim that the idea that there are people coming to America illegally to get free social benefits they can’t get in their own country isn’t true?! Because there are and have been mountains of statistics proving that it is. Regardless of how ‘prejudicially’ someone may want to spin these facts, they are still facts. Ergo, regardless of how prejudicially you use the term ‘anchor baby’ it is an accurate term nonetheless.

I’m not saying anything of the sort. I’m saying that the vast majority of people who come to this country do so to get a better life for themselves and their children and are perfectly willing to work and contribute to do so. If some do come here expressly for the purpose of living off the state and never contributing anything to society than we are responsible for allowing that to work in the first place. I can’t say that my grandparents came here so their children would have a free education, but my parents did go to public schools, and what would be wrong with my grandparents wanting that?

[elfkin477]

@slash2k

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.

Except for the 250,000 turned back at Ellis Island, that is.

And all this talk of babies not being used to anchor their parents here is pretty disingenuous considering that’s exactly who Obama wants to offer amnesty to. If he gets his way, 80% of the people who’ll get to stay in the US are in fact parents of such babies.

Who could be affected?
The president’s plan is expected to affect up to five million of the nation’s unauthorized immigrant population, currently 11.4 million according to the Migration Policy Institute. It would create a new program of deferrals for approximately 4 million undocumented parents of American citizens or legal permanent residents who have been in the country for at least five years. Deferrals would include authorization to work and would be granted for three years at a time.

• The New York Times

[aceplace57]

Not offensive at all. It’s a descriptive word for an immigration strategy that people use to get into and stay in this country. They are taking advantage of a loophole in our laws.

It’s not a personal insult. There has to be some word or phrase to succinctly describe this strategy. Anchor baby is the term.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

So how do distinguish which babies are “strategies” and which are the natural occurrence of people living their lives? Of course it’s offensive to suggest people are having babies as a strategy not because they want to simply have a family.

[Lord_Feldon]

@aceplace57

They are taking advantage of a loophole in our laws.

Could you please explain how you believe this “loophole in our laws” to work?

[aceplace57]

@Lord_Feldon

Could you please explain how you believe this “loophole in our laws” to work?

you have to be joking? Everybody knows that a child born here is a citizen. Automatic. Which of course makes it much easier for the illegal immigrant parent to remain and raise the child.

I’m not suggesting it’s always deliberate. Babies happen unexpectedly too. Birds and the Bees you know. Either way that baby is a natural born US citizen and he/she requires parents to raise it. It’s their ticket to remaining in the US.

[aceplace57]

I wish it was possible for anyone to immigrate here. The US simply can’t absorb that many people from Mexico, Central and South America. We don’t have that many jobs or the infrastructure for tens of millions of more people. Your talking about more roads, homes, power plants, water, and more food production. The US simply can’t absorb that many people.

We already have drought in multiple states. How are we supposed to invite in millions more people? We just can’t do it.

[Lord_Feldon]

@aceplace57

you have to be joking? Everybody knows that a child born here is a citizen. Automatic. Which of course makes it much easier for the illegal immigrant parent to remain and raise the child.

(Bolding mine.) Then cite it. The specific “loophole in our laws” that grants you residency here if you have a child here. The specific case law, specific regulation, specific legislation. Whatever.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@aceplace57

I’m not suggesting it’s always deliberate. Babies happen unexpectedly too. Birds and the Bees you know. Either way that baby is a natural born US citizen and he/she requires parents to raise it. It’s their ticket to remaining in the US.

But you asserted it was a term for strategy and that’s what made it neutral. Of course babies get born. You said it was a strategy. That’s why the term is offensive. It suggests a gaming of the system not the building of a family.

So again, how can you tell which babies deserve the label “anchor baby” and which don’t? They all look like babies and families to me.

[aceplace57]

Pregnant immigrants come to the US all the time with the hope of delivering their babies here. Ensuring they are citizens. cite, Citizenship Clause

I’m not attacking them. I’d do exactly the same thing if I were in their shoes. But that still doesn’t make it right. They are taking advantage of our goodwill and generosity. No one wants to orphan a baby. We have a moral obligation to allow the parents to remain and raise that child.

The Citizenship Clause is the first sentence of Section 1 in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

[Lord_Feldon]

@aceplace57

Pregnant immigrants come to the US all the time with the hope of delivering their babies here. Ensuring they are citizens. cite, Citizenship Clause

:smack: Nobody is disputing that the children are citizens (well, some people in the world are, but not in this thread).

@aceplace57

We have a moral obligation to allow the parents to remain and raise that child.

What, specifically, turns this moral obligation into the legal obligation you claim exists?

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

And that’s why it’s offensive. Using the term presumes YOU know why someone had a baby here. As a “strategy” to help themselves get access to the benefits in the U.S. or, perhaps, to be near family, find a better life for the child, because one parent is documented etc. You’re looking at a baby and deciding you know all about the family. That’s why it’s offensive.

[Habeed]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

So how do distinguish which babies are “strategies” and which are the natural occurrence of people living their lives? Of course it’s offensive to suggest people are having babies as a strategy not because they want to simply have a family.

Sure, if all you have is the baby, you can’t tell. But if you know the date when the mother snuck in, and she was already late term pregnant by then, you can probably reasonably infer the mother intends for the child to be a U.S. citizen and she reasonably intends to abuse this loophole in the law. (trespassers on someone’s property don’t get to stake a claim normally)

Finding it offensive is you being PC. There’s no reason to be offended. You’re the one viewing this in a negative light. It’s a reasonable and well planned strategy.

[aceplace57]

A better term should be coined. But, there has to be some term to describe this quandary.

I erred earlier. Illegal immigrant parents are usually allowed to stay and raise an anchor baby as a matter of policy. I don’t think there’s a specific law. It’s both a moral and practical obligation. It would cost far more to place that baby in foster care and it would be morally unacceptable to most Americans. Myself included. A baby has to be raised by it’s parents whenever possible.

It’s a terrible and unfair catch 22 that we are being placed in. There’s no real solution either unless the Constitution gets changed and that’s extremely unlikely.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@Habeed

Sure, if all you have is the baby, you can’t tell. But if you know the date when the mother snuck in, and she was already late term pregnant by then, you can probably reasonably infer the mother intends for the child to be a U.S. citizen and she reasonably intends to abuse this loophole in the law. (trespassers on someone’s property don’t get to stake a claim normally)

Finding it offensive is you being PC. There’s no reason to be offended. You’re the one viewing this in a negative light. It’s a reasonable and well planned strategy.

When you need to use descriptors like “snuck on”, “abuse this loophole” and “trespassers” I find it disingenuous for you to say I’m the one parsing this as negative and you think otherwise.

[running_coach]

@Habeed

Sure, if all you have is the baby, you can’t tell. But if you know the date when the mother snuck in, and she was already late term pregnant by then, you can probably reasonably infer the mother intends for the child to be a U.S. citizen and she reasonably intends to abuse this loophole in the law. (trespassers on someone’s property don’t get to stake a claim normally)

Finding it offensive is you being PC. There’s no reason to be offended. You’re the one viewing this in a negative light. It’s a reasonable and well planned strategy.

It’s not a loophole in the law but an amendment to the Constitution. 14th to be exact.
The SCOTUS decided in 1898 on the current interpretation.

[Habeed]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

When you need to use descriptors like “snuck on”, “abuse this loophole” and “trespassers” I find it disingenuous for you to say I’m the one parsing this as negative and you think otherwise.

Those statements are truthful.

1. You can’t get through the border openly, armed guards will send you away. You can’t get through the border via force/violence, those armed guards will shoot back/call for backup from the military. You have to use stealth or deception.

2. When the framers of the constitution used terms like natural born, they were thinking that a person who was raised within the United States is inherently more trustworthy than an immigrant from Europe. That’s why the President has to be natural born, etc. If you sneak into the country illegal, and someone is born from the parents of a trespasser, they are only “natural born” in that the law literally means that being born within a certain region of the globe qualifies. It doesn’t make any practical sense whatsoever and should never have been used this way, since someone can be born in the USA, stay long enough for a piece of paper to be signed documenting this, then raised and groomed as an agent of a foreign power for the next 30 years of their life, til they show up again wanting all the rights as a citizen.

3. Trespassing is being present somewhere unlawfully, willfully and knowingly, bypassing a fence, etc. All true for an illegal immigrant.
   I find the truth to be an absolute defense against charges of bias. But you can conclude what you want and live in your PC world of lies if you like.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

Have you actually looked up the law and policy?

Try this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/20/the-myth-of-the-anchor-baby-deportation-defense/

This is the definition that has little legal underpinning. For illegal immigrant parents, being the parent of a U.S. citizen child almost never forms the core of a successful defense in an immigration court. In short, if the undocumented parent of a U.S.-born child is caught in the United States, he or she legally faces the very same risk of deportation as any other immigrant.

Or this: Will Having U.S. Citizen Children Prevent Deportation of Undocumented Immigrant? | Nolo

Another thing that your friends might have heard of is a U.S. government policy known as “prosecutorial discretion.” The idea is that, because U.S. immigration enforcement authorities (“ICE”) cannot deport everyone, they should concentrate their efforts on high priority cases such as criminals – and drop the cases of people with many ties to the United States, including family. By granting “prosecutorial discretion,” they don’t give you a green card or anything like it, but they do promise not to deport you for the present.
If you had U.S. citizen children, that would indeed be a tie to the United States that might make you more likely to receive prosecutorial discretion if you were arrested by ICE. But so is your long stay and positive work history. So having children just for this purpose seems like an extreme measure. (Not to mention the fact that ICE is notoriously inconsistent in applying this policy, and sometimes deports people whom you’d think would be left alone under this policy.)

Or this: Child of Undocumented (Illegal) Immigrant Become U.S. Citizen? | AllLaw

Although the parents of U.S. citizens are considered their “immediate relatives,” the citizen cannot use this as a basis to help the parents immigrate until the citizen is age 21. This is obviously a long time to wait.

If you are planning for the long term in this way, however, you should check in with an immigration lawyer, both now and regularly before the child turns 21. The reason is that, under current law, if you are living in the United States unlawfully after an illegal entry, you face some major hurdles to actually receiving a green card (getting lawful permanent residence) through the child. The first thing you should know is that, due to your illegal entry, you won’t be able to stay in the U.S. and apply for the green card through the process known as “adjustment of status.”