Truth can be negative. I didn’t say they were lies or biased. I said they weren’t neutral statements. Even truthfulness isn’t the issue. The question is of offensiveness. I can call someone fat and ugly, and it may be truthful, but it’s also offensive. So even if I stipulated to the truthful aspect ( which I disagree with), doesn’t negate the offensiveness of attaching such a term to a child.
(the reason we call a mis-statement/lie “politically correct” is that the equivalent to a Soviet political officer - various busybodies - demands that you say something that way. Truthful statements we don’t call PC, we just call them correct…) The inverse of the truth is a lie.
That is absoutely untrue. how is calling someone disabled any less true than a gimp? Developmentally delayed less true than an idiot?
It’s the use of language in such a way that remains respectful and letting the person being described determine what respect looks like, not someone else who thinks they know better.
Crazy thought, I know.
A large number of people who are illegally present in the United States did in fact get through the border openly, and were admitted by those armed guards.
And there are a large number of non-citizens here legally. Should they be deported for getting pregnant?
As usual with these kind of discussions, people get either pedantic or willfully ignorant or both. Listen to how the term is used by the people who use it and tell me it isn’t used as a slur.
If you are an illegal alien and they come to deport you and you say “but wait, I have a baby born here in the USA, can I still stay?”…well you got yourself an anchor baby despite any planing or not regarding you previous pregnancy.
If you say “my bad, I guess we’ll all go back to where we came from” then you don’t have an anchor baby.
Anchor baby is like thug or “you people”. It can be offensive depending on the use and the intent of the use. But it can also be used to describe exactly what it means and any offense taken is because some people don’t like the truth pointed out.
And BTW…anchor babies don’t hold for shit in coral. Rip right apart they do.
Even if the answer is no? i don’t know why it isn’t sinking in that this doesn’t work.
Or you choose to release the anchor…
There are several aspects to this.
Does the parent think/hope this will work? If yes then its a anchor baby of one sort.
If its EVER even a consideration for immigration services for whether the parent/parents are allowed to stay then in those cases its an anchor baby of another sort.
If some fellow humans consider sending the parents back even with their american citizen child something not so good then its an anchor baby of yet another sort.
They may be rare, they may be not so rare, they may exist under different legal/moral/social constructs.
But the concept and definition aren’t some random made up shit that makes no sense.
So basically the moment anyone at all thought of the concept of anchor babies they became a thing even if it is not a real thing, gotcha.
I can assure you all that having an “anchor baby” doesn’t make it any less likely that you’ll be deported. Even if that child has a diagnosed disability.
Two years of fighting while my Mig was detained and having him deported without any appeal process proves that more than any personal beliefs you all might have about “loopholes”.
Anchor Baby is right up there with Welfare Queen. It’s a concept that people predisposed to think the worst grab onto despite virtually no evidence that it’s actually a problem.
No. Free speech has a very specific meaning. Again, it doesn’t mean ‘I get to say whatever I want and no one gets to call me on it’. When you claim it does, you’re belittling the very important concept of *actual *free speech, and the struggles of people who fight for it and who have been imprisoned, tortured and killed in the course of that fight.
Free speech also doesn’t work in only one direction. It means that a) the government will not stop you using the term ‘anchor baby’ as much as you want, and b) the government will not stop anyone from saying that you’re being a dick for using the term ‘anchor baby’.
That 250,000 covers the entire span of Ellis Island’s existence (to 1954) and was but a small fraction (about two percent) of the 12 million who came through during that period. Moreover, those turned back were mostly those who couldn’t walk off the ship (because of disability) or had other incurable health problems, mental retardation, and so forth. There was no application process, no immigrant visas, no procedures to follow for most of America’s history. Beginning in the 1890s, you needed a health certificate proving you were free of communicable disease before you got on the ship; inspectors at Ellis Island could turn you back if you had other physical or mental health problems, but it was still “show up and walk off the ship.” The notion that you had to apply for permission to immigrate is a creation of the 1920s.
Under current law, however, and under the law as it has existed since at least the 1960s, babies don’t anchor parents. The law might change in the future, or might not, but it doesn’t work that way now.
Fair question. Why not ask the Native Americans?
Words and phrases that show ignorance:
Anchor Baby
Islamofascist
Feminazi
Voter fraud
The Second protects the rest
Welfare queen
Reverse racism
I’m sure there are many more.
Voter fraud actually occurs—rather routinely in many countries. This is why international elections observers exist.
References to Native Americans always make me chuckle, because that can be interpreted two different ways:
a) Hey, WE are the ones that snuck in here illegally, so we have no room to criticize the people sneaking in now.
b) Look what happened to the Native Americans when THEY didn’t control immigration. We had better learn from history or we are doomed to repeat it.
Except the question to which I responded had nothing to do with immigration, per se. It was “Who owns this country?”.