Anchor baby: Difference between revisions
| [pending revision] | [pending revision] |
Cuchullain (talk | contribs) per talk. This is what the sources indicate. |
→Controversies: removed limitation to only specific types of deportation since it is not relevant here. See talk page. |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
The term "anchor baby" assumes that having a US citizen child confers immigration benefits on the parents and extended family. This is generally a false assumption, as immigration law does not allow a US citizen child to sponsor his parents until he or she turns 21. Once the child turns 18, immigration law also allows a US citizen child to sponsor his own siblings with a 15 to 23 year quota delay. Immigration law does not provide categories for any other relatives that would apply in this situation. In addition, if the parents are illegal immigrants, they are usually barred from immigration despite having a sponsor.<ref name="INA"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_4879.html|title=Department of State Visa Bulletin|date=May 29, 2010}}</ref> |
The term "anchor baby" assumes that having a US citizen child confers immigration benefits on the parents and extended family. This is generally a false assumption, as immigration law does not allow a US citizen child to sponsor his parents until he or she turns 21. Once the child turns 18, immigration law also allows a US citizen child to sponsor his own siblings with a 15 to 23 year quota delay. Immigration law does not provide categories for any other relatives that would apply in this situation. In addition, if the parents are illegal immigrants, they are usually barred from immigration despite having a sponsor.<ref name="INA"/><ref>{{cite web|url=http://travel.state.gov/visa/bulletin/bulletin_4879.html|title=Department of State Visa Bulletin|date=May 29, 2010}}</ref> |
||
In the public debate surrounding "anchor babies", it is also frequently assumed that an "anchor baby" would be beneficial in deportation proceedings. Such benefits do not exist except in the very rare case of extreme and profound hardship on the child. Approximately 88,000 |
In the public debate surrounding "anchor babies", it is also frequently assumed that an "anchor baby" would be beneficial in deportation proceedings. Such benefits do not exist except in the very rare case of extreme and profound hardship on the child. Approximately 88,000 immigrant parents of US citizen children have been deported in the past ten years <ref>{{Cite news|last = Watanabe| first = Teresa| title=Report criticizes increased deportation of legal immigrant parents| newspaper = Los Angeles Times| location = Los Angeles, CA| date = April 1, 2010| url = http://articles.latimes.com/2010/apr/01/local/la-me-deport1-2010apr01| accessdate = May 29, 2010 }}</ref> Federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court have upheld the refusal by the [[Immigration and Naturalization Service]] or [[Immigration and Customs Enforcement]] to stay the deportation of illegal immigrants merely on the grounds that they have U.S.-citizen, minor children.<ref>{{Cite court|litigants = Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Jong Ha Wang|vol = 450|reporter=U.S.|opinion=139|court = U.S. Supreme Court|date = March 2, 1981|url=http://supreme.justia.com/us/450/139/case.html}}</ref> |
||
On August 17, 2006, ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' columnist [[Eric Zorn]] used the term "anchor baby" in reference to [[Saul Arellano]], in a column critical of his mother, who had been given sanctuary at a Chicago church, and advocating her arrest and deportation on immigration related charges.<ref name="chigagotribune1">{{cite news|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0608170077aug17,0,2711021.column |title=Deportation Standoff Not helping Cause|date= August 17, 2006|first=Eric|last=Zorn|authorlink= Eric Zorn|work=[[Chicago Tribune]]}}</ref> After receiving two complaints, the next day Eric Zorn stated in his defense in his Chicago Tribune blog that the term had appeared in newspaper stories since 1997, "usually softened by quotations as in my column", and stated that he regretted having used the term in his column and promised not to use it again in the future. |
On August 17, 2006, ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'' columnist [[Eric Zorn]] used the term "anchor baby" in reference to [[Saul Arellano]], in a column critical of his mother, who had been given sanctuary at a Chicago church, and advocating her arrest and deportation on immigration related charges.<ref name="chigagotribune1">{{cite news|url=http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-0608170077aug17,0,2711021.column |title=Deportation Standoff Not helping Cause|date= August 17, 2006|first=Eric|last=Zorn|authorlink= Eric Zorn|work=[[Chicago Tribune]]}}</ref> After receiving two complaints, the next day Eric Zorn stated in his defense in his Chicago Tribune blog that the term had appeared in newspaper stories since 1997, "usually softened by quotations as in my column", and stated that he regretted having used the term in his column and promised not to use it again in the future. |
||
Revision as of 03:00, 10 July 2010
"Anchor baby" is a term used by immigration reductionists in the United States to describe a child born in the U.S. to illegal aliens. It is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who as a U.S. citizen through the legal principle of jus soli, may facilitate immigration for relatives through family reunification.[1][2][3][4][5][3] Family reunification, or family-based immigration, in the USA is a lengthy process and limited to categories prescribed by provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965.[1]
History and usage
A related term, "anchor child", referring in this case to very young immigrants who will later sponsor immigration for family members who are still abroad[5], was used in reference to Vietnamese boat people in the early 1980s and early 1990s.[6][7]
According to the Double-Tongued Dictionary, edited by American lexicographer Grant Barrett, the term "anchor baby" means "a child born of an immigrant in the United States, said to be a device by which a family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose United States citizenship."[5] In response to a reader's proposed alternate definition seeking to limit the definition of the term to children of illegal immigrants, Grant Barrett states:
...it is used for *any* immigrant. Those who use this term tend to be opposed to *all* immigration and immigrants, not illegal immigration, especially those who use their immigration stance as a mask for racism and xenophobia.[5]
Dictionary editor Barrett, however, apparently misapprehended the point of a reader objection to which he gave the response above. The objection was to Barret's "... automatically allowed to choose" assertion. The reader objecting had said, "no, it is automatic; they do not choose".[8]
The term has been applied with prejudice against Mexican Americans and other Latinos in general, even if their parents are U.S. citizens. For example, Ruben Navarrette Jr., a Mexican American columnist and editorial board member of The San Diego Union-Tribune and nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, reported being called an "anchor baby" in a 2007 column of his, titled Hate in the Immigration Debate":[8]
And, as I travel the country speaking to Hispanic groups, one thing I hear is that “anti-immigrant” rapidly morphed into “anti-Hispanic” and specifically “anti-Mexican.”
I get evidence of that every day in my e-mail. Just last week, after I defended the prosecution of two Border Patrol agents, a reader called me a “dirty Latino” who needs to get “back to Mexico.” Another writer called me an “anchor baby” – the term used by nativists to describe the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States.
Never mind that I was born in the United States and my parents were born in the United States. What I see here is racism.
Hispanic activist group the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) reports usage of the term towards pregnant Latinas (in reference to the child, as captured on video:)[9][10]
July 7th, 2007 – Fallbrook, CA: As a funeral service gets underway at the nearby Church, a Minuteman yells "pick your slaves" to prospective day laborer employers and attempts to provoke an activist. A Minutewoman can be heard saying "anchor baby on the way" to a Latina activist who is pregnant.
Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin — herself born in the United States to alien parents who were legally, temporarily in the U.S. at the time[11] — has asserted that "the custom of granting automatic citizenship at birth to children of tourists and temporary workers such as Yaser Esam Hamdi, tourists, and to countless 'anchor babies' delivered by illegal aliens on American soil, undermines the integrity of citizenship—not to mention national security".[12]
Controversies
The term "anchor baby" assumes that having a US citizen child confers immigration benefits on the parents and extended family. This is generally a false assumption, as immigration law does not allow a US citizen child to sponsor his parents until he or she turns 21. Once the child turns 18, immigration law also allows a US citizen child to sponsor his own siblings with a 15 to 23 year quota delay. Immigration law does not provide categories for any other relatives that would apply in this situation. In addition, if the parents are illegal immigrants, they are usually barred from immigration despite having a sponsor.[1][13]
In the public debate surrounding "anchor babies", it is also frequently assumed that an "anchor baby" would be beneficial in deportation proceedings. Such benefits do not exist except in the very rare case of extreme and profound hardship on the child. Approximately 88,000 immigrant parents of US citizen children have been deported in the past ten years [14] Federal appellate courts and the Supreme Court have upheld the refusal by the Immigration and Naturalization Service or Immigration and Customs Enforcement to stay the deportation of illegal immigrants merely on the grounds that they have U.S.-citizen, minor children.[15]
On August 17, 2006, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn used the term "anchor baby" in reference to Saul Arellano, in a column critical of his mother, who had been given sanctuary at a Chicago church, and advocating her arrest and deportation on immigration related charges.[16] After receiving two complaints, the next day Eric Zorn stated in his defense in his Chicago Tribune blog that the term had appeared in newspaper stories since 1997, "usually softened by quotations as in my column", and stated that he regretted having used the term in his column and promised not to use it again in the future.
On August 23, 2007, the San Diego, California-area North County Times came under criticism from one of its own former columnists, Raoul Lowery Contreras, in a column titled "'Anchor babies' is hate speech", for allowing the term "anchor baby" to be printed in letters and opinion pieces.[17]
In a September 3, 2008, debate in Danville, Virginia, Republican Congressman Virgil Goode declared that the greatest threat to America's national security was "anchor babies". He discussed H.R. 1940, the "Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007"[18] that would amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to consider a person born in the United States "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States for citizenship at birth purposes if the person is born in the United States of parents, one of whom is: (1) a U.S. citizen or national; (2) a lawful permanent resident alien whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces. Goode argued that H.R. 1940 would "end the anchor baby situation", and he blamed Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the fact that H.R. 1940 has not gone anywhere; his opponent, Democrat Tom Perriello, noted that similar legislation did not even make it out of committee when the Republicans controlled Congress, and that the Republican leadership, including then-President George W. Bush and then-Republican Presidential nominee John McCain, did not support the bill either.[19]
Popular culture
A 2009 episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit ("Anchor") dealt with the strangulation deaths of three American-born children whose parents are immigrants. Their killer's defense is he was brainwashed by constant viewing of a demagogue TV host.[20]
Anchor Baby was the title of the album released in 2009 by Rupesh Cartel.
See also
- Asylum shopping
- Birthright citizenship in the United States of America
- Birth tourism
- Chain immigration
- Illegal immigration
- Illegal immigration in the United States
- United States nationality law
- United States Constitution
- Fresh off the boat
- Wetback (slur)
- List of ethnic slurs
References
- ^ a b c "Immigration and Nationality Act". Department of Homeland Security, USCIS. Retrieved May 29, 2010.
- ^ Barrett, Grant (December 24, 2006). "Buzzwords: Glossary". New York Times.
anchor baby: a derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant. Since these children automatically qualify as American citizens, they can later act as a sponsor for other family members.
- ^ a b Berestein, Leslie (April 2, 2006). "Immigration bill turned quiet voices into a roar". San Diego Union-Tribune.
- ^ Zorn, Eric (August 18, 2006). "Sinking 'Anchor Babies". Chicago Tribune.
'They use it to spark resentment against immigrants,' Rivlin said of his ideological foes. 'They use it to make these children sound non-human.' To me, that's good enough reason to regret having used it and to decide not to use it in the future.
- ^ a b c d Barrett, Grant (ed.). "Double Tongued Dictionary".
Anchor baby: n. a child born of an immigrant in the United States, said to be a device by which a family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose American citizenship. Also anchor child, a very young immigrant who will later sponsor citizenship for family members who are still abroad.
- ^ "A Profile of a Lost Generation". Los Angeles Times Magazine. December 13, 1987. p. 12.
They are "anchor children," saddled with the extra burden of having to attain a financial foothold in America to sponsor family members who remain in Vietnam.
- ^ Kelly, Frances (June 2, 1991). "Sympathy for the boat people is wearing thin". Toronto Star. p. H2.
Known as "anchor" children, aid workers say the youngsters are put on boats by families who hope they'll be resettled in the United States or Canada and can then apply to have their families join them.
- ^ a b Navarrette Jr., Ruben (July 29, 2007). "Hate in the Immigration Debate". San Diego Union-Tribune.
- ^ Minutemen protest near a church on YouTube
- ^ "We can Stop the Hate: Hate Flashpoints". National Council of La Raza.
- ^ Nahm, H Y. "Michelle Malkin: The Radical Right's Asian Pitbull". Goldsea Asian American. Retrieved July 16, 2009.
- ^ Malkin, Michelle (July 4, 2003). "What makes an American?". Jewish World Review.
- ^ "Department of State Visa Bulletin". May 29, 2010.
- ^ Watanabe, Teresa (April 1, 2010). "Report criticizes increased deportation of legal immigrant parents". Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved May 29, 2010.
- ^ Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Jong Ha Wang, 450 U.S. 139 (U.S. Supreme Court March 2, 1981).
- ^ Zorn, Eric (August 17, 2006). "Deportation Standoff Not helping Cause". Chicago Tribune.
- ^ Contreras, Raoul Lowery (August 23, 2007). "'Anchor babies' is hate speech". North County Times.
- ^ H.R. 1940, from http://thomas.loc.gov
- ^ Perriello on Immigration; Goode on 'Anchor Babies'. Danville, Va. September 3, 2008.
- ^ "Law and Order: SVU Season 11 Episode 10 Recap and Review Anchor". BeeSight.com. December 9, 2009.