Talk:Anchor baby

This article was nominated for deletion on August 7, 2008. The result of the discussion was Snowball Keep.

What if

What if 1 of the parents is an illegal immigrant and the other is a citizen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.174.251 (talk) 04:11, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Then it is labeled a sham marriage. Terjen (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with the effort to censure the use of the word anchor baby which is a perjorative word for the results of an antisocial action but sometimes the relationships between a citizen and an illegal alien are real. I disagree with the statement by TerJen. BTW My grandfather a naturalized citizen who was an immigration agent referred to himself as an anchor baby because they were legal residents in his previous country but where they had migrated from an even poorer one in late pregnancy order to have him born in a country with a higher standard of living. RichardBond

Pete Domenici

Since Sen. Pete Domenici's "illegal alien" mother married a US citizen, I have to question whether it's really relevant to mention him here. AFAIK, no one has seriously proposed denying birthright US citizenship to a child born in the US with one American parent, even if the other parent is here illegally. Richwales (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• That's a good point. I'm going to remove the material. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is an exact definition of "anchor baby". I think it's interesting and relevant since this page is about the offspring of illegal immigrants. Besides the article states that his father was also an illegal immigrant but because he served in the world war he was able to become a citizen. His mother was a citizen as well but not until Domenici was an adolescent. I think it's relevant and part of the reason people come to wikipedia, "I didn't know that!" kind of fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Rich, this article isn't about wheter the offspring the illegal immigrnats should be citizens or not. It's about facts on them. So the information on Domencici is valid as he is the offspring of an illegal immigrant so I don't agree with your reason for deleting this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grant23 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this information on Sen. Pete Dominici should stay as it is relevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MGM87 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Senator Dominici wasn't an anchor baby, why should this be in here? - Schrandit (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still not at all convinced that it belongs here, in this article, because (AFAIK) no one has questioned whether Domenici ought to have had US citizenship from birth, and the story doesn't seem to suggest that Domenici's birth helped (or was intended to help) his mother to gain US citizenship. Maybe this account could go somewhere in the article about illegal immigration to the United States, but I don't really think it belongs here in the "anchor baby" article.

I can't find anything in the New York Times story, BTW, saying that Domenici's father was an illegal immigrant who got US citizenship as a result of military service in WWII. The story calls Domenici's father "an Italian-born American citizen" and (as far as I could tell) doesn't say anything else about his background. Is there some other source of info about his father's status? Or did I miss something in the cited story?

And I also must disagree with the idea that this page isn't about whether the US-born children of illegal aliens ought to be US citizens. As I see it, the invention of the term "anchor baby" is thoroughly tied up with the whole question of birthright citizenship — and I've never heard anyone call such kids "anchor babies" without also saying or strongly implying that they ought not to be considered US citizens. Richwales (talk) 21:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to restate my agreement with Richwales on this. Domenici does not fit the description of an "anchor baby", and so does not belong in this article. We have several other articles concerning illegal immigration to the U.S. and it may be worth including in one of those. Just not here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll go even further. Reguardless of the supposed merits (or lack thereof) of individual listings, a trivia section listing individual "Anchor Babies" has no more place in this article than would a trivia section listing individual "Wetbacks" or a trivia section listing individual "N****rs would have in those articles. Such listings of individuals are simply not the purpose of the articles. The purpose of the articles are to explain (hopefully in an encyclopeadic fashion) the terms.--Ramsey2006 (talk)

Ongoing dispute in "birthright citizenship" article

There is an unresolved dispute going on in the "Birthright citizenship in the United States of America" talk page over whether it is appropriate for that article to use "anchor babies" (or perhaps "so-called 'anchor babies'"), instead of some other expression such as "U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants". A request for comments (RfC) has been posted, but no new outside participants have chimed in yet. Anyone who is willing to come over — whatever your position on this question might be — and help form a consensus would be welcome. Thanks. Richwales (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Elk v. Wilkins and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark

I'm concerned about the way these two cases are mentioned in the article without anything even approaching sufficient context to help the reader understand what connection, if any, they have to "anchor babies" or "birthright citizenship". Neither Elk nor Wong was ever alleged by anyone to be an "anchor baby".

I do think Wong Kim Ark does need to be mentioned, since it is the seminal Supreme Court case firmly establishing, in most people's minds, jus soli (birthright) citizenship as settled US law in the post-Civil War era. And I would be happy with stating that the fact that Wong's parents were legal residents has caused some experts to question whether Wong Kim Ark truly does apply to US-born children of illegal immigrants, and that for this reason some in Congress have introduced bills which they have believed could deny citizenship to such children without running afoul of the court decision. But simply summarizing the holding in Wong Kim Ark, without any explanation of how it fits in with the rest of the subject, could easily give a reader the impression that we're saying Wong Kim Ark definitely does not apply to "anchor babies" — a POV conclusion which, AFAIK, is not supported by a consensus of sources.

As for Elk v. Wilkins, I'm not convinced that this case even deserves to be mentioned in this article at all. The current one-line summary would certainly give a reader the misimpression that we're saying Elk might very possibly apply to "anchor babies" — when, in fact, any reasonably careful reading of the court's opinion makes it obvious that it applied specifically and exclusively to the special status of American Indians born on reservations and had nothing at all to do with US-born children of illegal immigrants. If any mention of Elk is to be kept in the article at all, I strongly feel that it needs to be qualified by adding the extra detail that the subject of the case was an Indian who wanted to be recognized as a US citizen despite having been born on a tribal reservation.

Comments? Richwales (talk) 06:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that this page should focus on the term itself, and not get mired up in an attempt to duplicate the material from the Birthright citizenship in the United States of America article, or any other issue related article. A breif quote of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, along with a breif mention of Wong Kim Ark, along with a link to the Birthright citizenship in the United States of America article for more information should more than suffice suffice. Certainly, Elk does not seem worth mentioning here, and fringe viewpoints would be more properly placed in the Birthright citizenship article, where they can be placed in their proper perspective. This article needs to stay foccused on the term itself, with a full discussion of the citizenship issues laid out in articles expressly written for that purpose, and linked to from here. Note that the Wetback (slur) article simply links to the Illegal immigration and Operation Wetback articles, and does not even attempt to discuss in the article the details involved in these controversial issues where that term has been often used. I think that we can go a little further here if we so desire (as appears to be the case) since this is a somewhat longer article, but not too much further.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 16:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Considering that the term Anchor Baby revolves around the assumed citizenship of the child and its ability to sponsor the immigration of its relatives, a brief overview/mention of the only two Supreme Court rulings that pertain to jus soli citizenship (under the 14th Amendment) should be included. Obviously, an extensive review of these rulings would be out-of-place, as Birthright Citizenship has its own page. On this note, it might also be proper to expound/list the conditions under which a child may sponsor family members. For example, I believe that "proof of dependency" and "ability to support" are also required (?, vague recollection from when a naturalized friend was talking to me about bringing over parents). Chain migration does have it's own page, but at the moment this article provides more information(!). But I will agree that the legal hurdles and objections may have little influence on the perceived ability, which probably leads to the use of the term. Magic pumpkin (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Usage

I have added a section on usage of the term documented in reliable secondary sources the wider application of the term. The references from Grant Barrett are, I believe, the most authorative sources that we have yet for the usage of the term. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 22:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I have also attempted to make the introductory paragraph consistent with this new information on usage.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 22:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

First, it's been a while since I've been on this page. I must say that it is considerably better than it was about a year ago, which was absolutely horrible. But a fairly reasonable opening seems to have been recently marred with personal viewpoints, such as "as the child has no say in who their parents are or what their status in the U.S. might be". My personal viewpoints on why the term is sometimes offensive are that it either draws attention to the fact that the parents were in the country illegally, or that the entire purpose of the (grammatical) object's existence was to bring US citizenship to its parents. Obviously, my viewpoints have no place in the opening. I do feel that if reasoning for why the term is offensive can be found in print, then it should be stated and cited properly. Magic pumpkin (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a tag on the phrase "as the child has no say in who their parents are or what their status in the U.S. might be". I do not recall right off hand this being given as a reason for anybody calling the term "pejorative" or "derogatory" in any of the sources. If, upon further inspection, it turns out that this is not given as a reason in any of the sources, then I will support it removal as OR. If it has a source, it should be cited properly.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 04:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I must also object that the term be unequivocally labeled as offensive or pejorative. While some persons may take offense at its use, it has also been used commonly (and correctly) in print, on the floor of the House and Senate, and during testimony before congressional committees. I understand that using examples of the term's proper use to weaken the position that it is always offensive could be considered as original research; however, it is my experience that one can readily find examples where someone has labeled a term as offensive, but rarely the converse. For example, I could easily state that black is a derogatory term for an African American, and provide about ten Google'd references in print. At the same time I could provide hundreds of instances of the word black being used to refer to an African American, with no indication of malice, but no (or very few) articles supporting it as being 'OK'. Obviously, there is ample evidence that some people have stated that they find the term offensive, but there is also evidence that it is used without any malice. It is clearly not always pejorative or offensive. Maybe if I publish a law review article about chain migration, I can use the term Anchor Baby, and state that it is sometimes offensive, sometimes colloquial. Then I can cite my own article to support my own views! Of course, I jest, maybe. Magic pumpkin (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources say that the term is derogatory. So far, dispite great efforts, we have been unable to find reliable sources that state that the term is not derogatory, or that it has non-derogatory usages. As stated in our previous consensus above and in the archives, it is not our job to comment on what reliable secondary sources don't say. As for your example, I strongly suspect that there exist reliable secondary sources that say that the term "Black" has non-derogatory uses. I strongly suspect that there are multiple reliable secondary sources that discuss the differences between "African American" and "Black", and which discuss the pros and cons of the various uses of each term. For example, the term "Black" would include quite alot of people around the world who are not US citizens and who would not be covered by the term "African American", and I cannot even concieve of the possibility that this fact has been overlooked and not commented on by reliable secondary sources. Even in the most extreme cases, such as the N-word, I strongly suspect that there exist reliable secondary sources that will explicitely document non-pejorative usages of the term, whatever you or I may think of the N-word. Again, when similar reliable secondary sources document significant non-pejorative uses of the term "anchor baby", those reliable secondary sources can be included with attribution to support the statement to that effect. Until this happens, we need to remember that our job here is to report on what reliable secondary sources actually say, not to report on what they don't say or to speculate about why they don't say it.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 04:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The statement that the term "is offensive" itself constitutes a point-of-view and original research, apparently arrived at by finding only two examples where people published their opinions that it is such. If you would bother to read the mentioned Chicago Tribune blog, you will actually find an argument as to whether or not the term is offensive (one in which I participated, so I guess I sort of didn't jest). Point of fact, whether a word is offensive or not is always a matter of opinion. To unequivocally label a word as offensive is therefore always the editor's point-of-view, regardless of how many opinions, opinions of opinions, or preponderances of opinions they might find in print. Magic pumpkin (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to "my" three sentences in the Controverseys section? If so, please take a look at my rather extended justification for their inclusion in the sections above labeled as "Text of Ramsey2006's edits" and "Discussion of Ramsey2006's edits". The point of these sentences is not to document that the term is pejorative, but rather to describe two controversies that arose reguarding the use of the term in newspapers. Although the columns cited are opinion columns, the statements being referenced in the columns are factual statements about the resulting controversies, and necessary background. Please let me know if you need further clarification about this section. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I very much concur with this commenter ("Magic pumpkin"), and with his comment above as well. The way this article is (re-)written is clearly in violation of NPOV. The most widely-accepted usage of this term is for the situation arising when a child is born to illegal aliens. This term has been in public usage for at least ten years (possibly longer), and has frequently not been used as a pejorative.

If this article is going to mention the "wider application" of this term, then it must also mention the traditional and more-common usage... Totally removing that from the article, and replacing it with the other (less-frequent) usage, is a clear NPOV violation.

Similarly: If this article is going to mention the derogatory uses of this term, it should also mention that the term has long been used, non-offensively. In fact, in the vast majority of the cases in which this term has been used, controversy has not resulted. This Seattle Times column by prominent left-wing journalist and PBS host Bonnie Erbe is a good example: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/224664_erbe18.html

It's a new term to me: Anchor Babies. Having grown up in the news biz, I'm familiar with Anchormen and Anchorwomen, but not Anchor Babies.

The moniker refers to the children of pregnant illegal immigrants who enter the United States at some point before their due date. Since their children are delivered on U.S. soil, the children immediately become U.S. citizens and "anchor" the mother (and later, the rest of her family) as future legal U.S. citizens as well.

(Since this article dwells upon the term itself, it is notable enough to warrant inclusion as a reference, in this encyclopedia entry.)

NBC News has also used the term, in a similar way: "Anchor babies tie illegal immigrants to US"

"Anchor babies" are children born in the United States to parents who are illegal immigrants.

These are two of many, many examples. As one can clearly see (and a Lexis-Nexis search of print and broadcast media will confirm this), the most-common usage of this term is for the children of illegal aliens - because they supposedly "anchor" the parents to the U.S., despite them being here illegally.

If the "wider usage" of this term is going to be mentioned in this article, then that is fine. However, completely omitting the more-common and traditional usage makes this encyclopedia entry biased, and leaves out the key element of the story.

The same is true, when this article mentions only "derogatory" usage, but fails to mention that the term is also often used non-pejoratively, and that its usage does not typically general controversy. The "dehumanizing" Chicago Tribune assertion is actually Eric Zorn reflecting upon the perspective of one activist (Doug Rivlin), who himself states that he does not consider the term offensive, but some people use it, in an offensive way.

The bottom line is that, in order to achieve NPOV, we need to include both definitions, and to include both usages.

One other thing: The "jackpot baby" label, in the article title, needs to be removed, or at least amended with a clarification. That is a much less-common term, and is used with a different connotation than "anchor baby" - it should be dealt with separately, and should not be listed in the immediate title opening, as being synonymous with "anchor baby". Pacificus (talk) 07:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I just took a look at the source (Double-Tongued dictionary) and I'm concerned about the accuracy of the statement that it applies to all children of immigrants, irrespective of immigration status of the parents. Barrett commits a logical fallacy -- because people who use this term tend to be against all immigration, he reasons, therefore this term must be applied against all immigrants. This logic is flawed on its face; the child of a permanent resident or an immigrant citizen cannot have "anchor" value, and, indeed, the usage Barrett cites (a usenet article linked here) does not bear out his argument. The commenter is indeed against all immigrants, but he merely lists having an anchor child as one means by which to obtain permanent residence. With that in mind, I'm going ahead and editing the definitions to be consistent with the logic of the term. RayAYang (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, it's a sufficiently large edit that I'll wait a day or two for replies -- likely to be controversial. RayAYang (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Although I am a mathematical logician by profession, I am reluctant to second guess the statements and judgements of a professional lexicographer and replace them with my own WP:OR based judgements. Is this what you are asking us to do here? That task seems somehow a bit out of place on a wikipedia talk page.--Ramsey2006 (talk)

The term "immigrants" in the cited source has been interpreted as "all immigrants" in the wikipedia article. This is clearly not supportable. It's our job to find and fix such things. So the logic described above may not be the right reason, but I agree this statement supposedly supported by this source is not right. Dicklyon (talk) 15:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

The term "immigrants" in Grant Barrett's double tounged dictionary has been interpreted to mean "all immigrants" because it is absolutely 100% crystal clear that Grant Barrett intended it to be interpreted as such.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 15:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. To me, he means immigrants that don't otherwise have a good way to legal status, when he says: "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." The text suggests that the term is limited to those for whom this explanation is applicable. If you choose to interpret that as "all immigrants" you can, but wikipedia should not. Dicklyon (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't suggest that to me at all, especially in light of the fact that Barrett himself went out of his way personally to correct a misconception of a reader in the comments:

Reader comments:

Well in reality:

Anchor baby:
n. a child born of an illegal alien in the United States, said to be a device by which a foreign family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose(no, it is automatic; they do not choose) American citizenship. This baby citizen, will later have the ability to sponsor citizenship for family members who are still living abroad.
by Campbell 09 Nov 07, 0533 GMT

No, you’re wrong, Campbell. As one can plainly see in the citations above, such as in the third one, 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.
by Grant Barrett 09 Nov 07, 0123 GMT

Furthermore, there is no chance that this is a reader mascarading as Barrett, since Barrett maintains editorial oversight over which reader comments are posted: "Leave a comment (must be approved by the moderator before it will appear)".--Ramsey2006 (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's precisely what I'm doing. And it's not at all out of place. One of our duties is to evaluate the accuracy of sources for statements that go into an encyclopedia. For this usage of "anchor baby," we have nothing more than the word of a single lexicographer (in a self-published comment); upon more serious examination, it turns out that his word is not supported by the very usages he cites. Against this exceptional (and unique) viewpoint, we have the overwhelming weight of usage as it is used in, ironically, every single source on the Double-Tongued Dictionary entry for "anchor baby." Is it going to be necessary to take this to a formal dispute resolution? RayAYang (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I for one am not interested in playing your game of amature lexicographer. In your attempt to pick nits in Barrett's statements in search of "logical fallacies", you are putting words in his mouth. Words like "because" and "therefore", which tend to lead would-be amature logicians to construct strawman statements with implication arrows in them just to be able to knock them down, from the statements of folks in other professions. What's next? Venn diagrams? When this sort of thing starts happening, I have a tendency to tune out, figuring that some folks have just seen too many Star Trek episodes. Live long and prosper, Mr Spock...--Ramsey2006 (talk) 21:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I had feared you were going to be intrasigient about this. RayAYang (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

While I'm sure my statement here alone can't be used to support a side as it would constitute "original research", it has been my experience that the term "anchor baby" is most used by people who are against *illegal* immigration, but not necessarily against other types of immigration. After all, legal residents don't need an "anchor baby," they have other paths to citizenship or, at a minimum, already have residency, which is what the anchor baby is supposed to provide for illegal immigrants, a means to keep them from being deported. Grant Barrett may be a professional lexicographer, but that does not mean he does not have an agenda of his own; every one of his arguments I've read on this topic read like the kind of person who wants to paint someone who is opposed to illegal immigration as simply being racist and twist them as if they are actually opposed to all immigration. Granted, there may very well be some people who are the latter and use the term more broadly, but their (and Barrett's) misuse of the term does not change it's truer, more narrow meaning. Perhaps Wikipedia should look at re-structuring this article as defining the term more narrowly, but reflecting that some use the term more broadly to reflect all immigrants. Currently it reads just the opposite, that somehow the term is properly defined as referring to all immigrants, but there are a rare few who prefer to use it with the more narrow definition. Nolefan32 (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Anchor baby is not an ethnic slur

It can be simultaneously applied to lower-class Mexicans and upper class Koreans alike, because it describes a particular type of behavior. In an injurious, derogative way, to be sure, but that's like saying "savages" or "heathens" or "barbarians" are ethnic slurs, which they simply are not. RayAYang (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

If you examine the new references, you will see that reliable secondary sources are beginning to note the racial/ethnic uses and connotations of the term "anchor baby". These usages of the term have always been quite aparrent from OR with primary unreliable sources, as any web search will turn them up by the hundreds. However, now that we have secondary sources that report these usage that we have known about all along, we can legitimately make note of these usages of the term in the article. Once reliable secondary sources begin to note such uses, we no longer have to stick our heads in the sand as wikipedia editors and pretend that we can't see what has been in front of our faces all along. This is no different than the epithet wetback, which some people will still claim simply makes note of the condition of peoples' backs after crossing the Rio Grand, and will still claim has no racial/ethnic component. Of course, that epithet has been around alot longer, so that there are plenty of reliable secondary sources that tell us otherwise. Well, anchor baby as an epithet is aparrently coming of age, and reliable secondary sources for its uses are popping up now. We don't have to pretend any longer.

Again, I want to emphasize that these reliable secondary sources aren't telling us anything that we didn't already know all along. After all, we can all surf the web and see who uses these terms and how they are applied in practice and to what purposes they are put. It is just that our knowledge was OR based upon examining the thousands upon thousands of uses of the term in primary sources that would never qualify as reliable sources for anything under any stretch of the imagination, and therefor forbidden to mention in the article until these latest reliable secondary sources were found. This is going to happen more and more as time goes on, and reliable sources continue to comment of the obvious usages that we have all been able to see right before our eyes all along, but whose mention was forbidden under the wikipedia rules. Our hands are no longer tied. We can now mention, under wikipedia rules, the obvious racial/ethnic usages and connotations of this term just as we can with the term "wetback".--Ramsey2006 (talk) 05:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I have examined the references (I assume the Rubens Navarette and La Raza links are the ones in questino) and I find them unconvincing. First of all, as a general principle, the plural of anecdote is not data. Mr. Navarette does not suggest that the term has migrated outside its original meaning, only that in a frenzy of hatred it was erroneously applied to him. The assertion that this is now an accepted and general use of the term is, IMO, yours alone. There is room for debate about this, so I've left it in for now pending further discussion. The second reference was clearcut -- the slur used against the pregnant lady was "anchor baby on the way" -- so it was clearly in reference to her child, and not to the lady. I've gone ahead and cut out that section. RayAYang (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarified and reinserted.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 07:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur that the statement "applied to Mexican Americans and other Latinos in general" is invalid and unsupported. Instead of providing support for the statement, Navarette's article apparently contradicts it, indicating that the term was used incorrectly. Navarette's article also contradicts the statement that the term is used "regardless of the immigration status of the parents." The aside, "in reference to the child", should not be in quotes, leaving the erroneous, "usage of the term is towards pregnant Latinas", as the main phrase. Not only do opinion pieces constitute extremely weak evidence, but these citations actually contradict the generalized statement of 'ethnic slur', which they were cited to support! It is apparent that this edit not only constitutes original research, but is in fact wrong. The plural of anecdote is opinion, and presenting opinion as data is assumption, and assumption makes an -deleted-. It is apparent that another editing war is on the horizon due to another editor hating the term, taking offense to its existence, and inserting their own opinion as fact. Magic pumpkin (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I will address the Navarette column edits in a separate section below, hopefully this weekend. I have a feeling that it will need its own section. As for the pregnant Latina vs her unborn child, is this really a serious objection? I have attempted to clarify it as best that I know how to meet RayAYang's objection on this point. Can the unborn child actually hear the epithet said in the proximity of the mother? And if so, does it seem likely that he or she can comprehend it? I really don't get the objection at this point, after my edit clarifying that it was in reference to the unborn child. (Something that I had just assumed would be taken for granted and could be safely ommitted in the original version of my edit. I'm not looking to see how long that we can make this article, as you can see from my discussion above reguarding the Controverseys section.)--Ramsey2006 (talk) 06:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The pregnant Latina point is one that is absolutely clear-cut. The slur was directed at the unborn child, not the mother herself. An insult need not be spoken to the person insulted. If somebody tells my mother that she's the mother of a moron, you may assume that it is my (or my sib's) intelligence that is being insulted. Accordingly, I have removed that reference. I will await developments on the Navarette column, but as it is, I don't think that stands up either. RayAYang (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Accordingly, since the category in question is supported by the new reliable secondary sources, I am going to put the category in question back.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 05:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

It's a grotesque mangling of the language to call something an "ethnic slur" which is a) applied to people of multiple ethnicities, b) also clearly not applicable to people of those same ethnicities in different situations. A correlation with the use of the epithet and an ethnicity does not an ethnic slur make -- an ethnic slur must be a slur upon an ethnic group, not upon a presumed behavior, unless that behavior is indistinguishable from the ethnic group. RayAYang (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Presumed behavior based upon racial/ethnic stereotypes and animosity. Just like Wetback.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Wetback has the quality of at least being restricted in usage to one ethnic group, which is rather a requirement for an ethnic slur. Although I wonder if the case there might be overstated as well. Put bluntly: barbarian, savage, heathen, terrorist, etc., are not ethnic slurs, for all that they have in the past been associated by negative stereotype with particular ethnic groups. I wonder if you're getting anything I'm saying. Perhaps it's best if we left it for the morning and some fresh eyes to look over. RayAYang (talk) 07:50, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with RayAYang's take on this, for the reason's he's already given: a term that describesw behavior regardless of ethnicity cannot really be said to be an ethnic slur. J. Langton (talk) 14:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The term may not be referring to one specific ethnic group, but I think it still carries the connotation of someone of a noticeably "different" group. (Can anyone find an instance of a US-born child of illegal immigrants from the UK or Scandinavia being called an "anchor baby"?) A term can still be primarily used as a bigoted slur even if it doesn't exclusively apply to one and only one ethnicity. Maybe "anchor baby" is not specifically an "ethnic" slur, but it's still an intentionally (or heedlessly) derogatory term. Richwales (talk) 16:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

(Can anyone find an instance of a US-born child of illegal immigrants from the UK or Scandinavia being called an "anchor baby"?) I think that to really be anologous to the most generalized usage of the term that has been recorded against Mexican Americans (such as Navarrett) and other Latinos (the pregnant Latina refered to in a deleted portion of the article), for example, there would have to be instances of it being applied to white US born Citizens whose parents are also both US born Citizens and all of whose grandparents are also US Citizens. Besides these two instances referenced by reliable secondary sources, there are plenty of unreliable primary sources that present the use of the term towards entire groups of Mexican Americans whose citizenship/immigration status (nor that of the parents and grandparents) cannot possibly be known to the user of the epithet. Note, as just one small example, the title of this video at YouTube: [1] There is no reason for us here at Wikipedia to pretend that the term is never used in this way, reguardless of the better documented primary meaning, especially when we have at least two reliable sources that report on two specific examples of such generalized racial/ethnic based usage. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It's applied to Asians, ergo, it is applied to more than one ethnic group. The use of it in a derogatory fashion towards one ethnic group does not make it an ethnic slur, i.e. a slur meant to be unique to that group. Otherwise, "barbarian" would be an ethnic slur, but nobody thinks of it that way. I distinguish this from "wetback," which nobody uses to refer to anybody besides Mexicans in the United States. Do I need to draw a Venn diagram? RayAYang (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

This isn't ZFC. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose "Beaner" could apply to anyone who eats beans, but in practice it is only used for one nationality/ethnicity. Likewise with "Curry-muncher", "Cheese-eating surrender monkey", "Camel Jockey ", and other slurs that are theoretically based on behavior. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

An analogous arguement for the epithet Wetback (slur) is often given. The arguement that the epithet refers to behavior (swimming across the Rio Grand and thereby getting ones back wet) and is not a racial/ethnic reference is commonly made. Here are a couple of recient examples of just this arguement being made. The first involves a bar in oakland that instituted and advertized a drink special called "Wetback Wednesdays".

In a nutshell, the owners wanted to have a themed weekday to bring in more patrons, so they created Wetback Wednesdays, which offered specials on Coronas and tacos. Students from the three Oakland-based universities boycotted the bar and were covered in local news and even in a short snippet on CNN. In reaction, Garage Door management made statements such as, "It's an ad meant to be eye-cathing, and it obviously is," and, "The term refers to illegal immigrants, not Mexicans in general. It's not a racist term, it's more pro-American than anything." Irritated (and probably drunk) students eventually stole the "Wetback Wednesday" signs, and, miraculously, the replacement signs had a new name: "Mexican American Wednesdays."[2]

The second involved an agenda item ("Dempsey's proposed old Harmony Hills tract and possible holding pen for wetbacks") that made use of the epithet:[3]

The councilman is Charles Laws, who's also a general manager of a water supply company in the Austin area. Last week, Laws posted an agenda item for a meeting of his firm's board of directors that probably was the most read agenda item in the history of water supply corporations. His company is weighing a request to provide water to a proposed immigrant detention facility. In the agenda, however, Laws dubbed the facility a "holding pen for wetbacks."

Some have called for Laws' resignation. On Saturday, the Austin-American Statesman said that Laws, a member of the Mustang Ridge City Council, defended his use of "wetback." According to their story:

Laws said "wetback" is widely acknowledged to mean immigrants who swim the Rio Grande and enter the United States illegally, not American citizens. Laws said the term is not racial, an assertion that others dispute. He said he wishes he had not used the word in an agenda item for the Creedmoor-Maha Water Supply Corp.'s board of directors but will not resign over it.[4]

And, of course, the arguement is regularly made on internet forums and bulliten boards, as well as readers comments news stories:

Wet back is not a racial slur - it refers to an illegal alien breaking the law by illegally sneaking into the United States of America by crossing the Rio Grande river.

This criminal could be Latino, Black, White, Asian, Arab, Serb, etc., etc. How anyone in an enlightened college trained area could refer to this term as racist only shows their ignorance of the laws of the United States.

A WET BACK IS A CRIMINAL, RACE HAS NO BEARING ON THE TERM.[5]

--Ramsey2006 (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ruben Navarrette called an anchor baby

Navarette wrote an opinion column titled "Hate in the Immigration Debate"[6]. His basic thesis is pretty well summed up in the first two paragraphs:

The winners write the history. And now that border restrictionists have won the battle to scuttle immigration reform, the history that many are desperate to write is that the debate was colorblind.

Really. The restrictionists and those pundits who have taken up their cause claim that race and ethnicity aren't even part of the discussion and that those who oppose giving illegal immigrants a shot at legal status would feel the same way if the immigrants were coming from Canada instead of Mexico. They say their concerns are limited to border security and the rule of law, and have nothing to do with nativism or xenophobia. And they reject any suggestion that the debate was hostile to Hispanics.

My interest in this column is not so much in Navarette's opinion, as expressed above, but rather with a specific incident involving the use of the epithet anchor baby directed towards him personally that he reports on in this column, as evidence of the racial tone (according to Navarette) in which the immigration debate has taken.

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.

Now, whether or not one agrees with Navarette's opinion here is immaterial. In fact, Navarette's opinion here is immaterial, except insofar as it might help in interpreting his reporting of the fact (not opinion) of Navarette having been called an anchor baby. I believe that Navarette is a reliable source in reporting this fact, dispite his being an opinion columnist. True, this is an opinion column, but the fact being referenced is not a statement of his opinion. It is a straightforward reporting of a simple fact. Navarette was called an anchor baby dispite he and his parents being US citizens, all born in the US, and the fact that all 4 of his grandparents are US Citizens. What we have here is a Mexican American being called an anchor baby, with no possible reason for the writer to believe that he might satisfy any of the criteria set out by what is normally thought of as the standard definition of the term. Indeed, it is clear that the email writer does not even know Navarette personally, which would virtually preclude any possiblity that he is using the epithet under the more "standard" definition.

This general use of the epithet anchor baby against Mexican Americans can be easily observed on multiple websites and internet forums, as well as in reader comments to news articles posted online by readers. Navarette's report of this one occurence is important for us here because it provides a reliable secondary source to the fact that the word has been used in this manner. I should note that I have taken some trouble to soften the original statements from saying that "The term is also applied to" to "The term is also sometimes applied to" to "The term has also been applied to", in successive weakenings of the statement in the interest of compromise. But I don't think that we can totally ignore this usage, reguardless as to whether it fits the "standard" definition. Such racially/ethnicly based usage of the epithet is a real word phenomina, and the application of the term to Navarette as reported in his column (quite apart from any opinions that he expresses in that same column) is an example of this very phenomina of usage.

--Ramsey2006 (talk) 23:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The introduction section is a disaster

Please keep our arguments about usage in the talk page, not in the articlespace itself. The introduction should be a short introduction to the term and its history, not an argument for a particular position, as it is currently. RayAYang (talk) 01:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this article is not neutral. The term is not inherently derogatory. It can and has been used as an epithet, but it is a neutral term in itself. Perhaps a section covering the derogatory aspect of the term is indicated, but it should not be a part of the basic definition. I use the term "anchor baby" in discussions of birthright with no derogatory intent. It simply means "a child born of non-citizens that automatically becomes a citizen and impart enhanced rights to the parents". That is a mouthful that requires a shorter term for usage in a discussion. This is a neutral definition of the term. I know people that use the terms 'Democrat' and 'Republican' as derogatory terms, but that does not mean that the definition of those terms should include a statement that they ARE derogatory terms.

Democrat Democrat is a derogatory term that refers to a member of a political party named the Democratic Party?

(I would be interested in the section that discusses the term "Democrat as a slur"... )

To accuracy; I also find fault with accuracy in using "immigrant" instead of "illegal immigrant" in the basic definition (introduction?). I use and understand the term "immigrant" to indicate a legal immigrant. A legal immigrant parent does not need the enhancement that a child born here brings when the baby is automatically given citizenship. Only an illegal immigrant benefits from the "anchor" aspect of the child.

Mfreemo (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Mfreemo 2:50 PM 9/10/2008

We can any summarize reliable sources. We have reliable sources that say it is a derogatory term. As for the matter of legal immigrants, there are many situations that allow non-citizens to be in the U.S. legally, including a variety of temporary visas. There is even the related concept of birth tourism.

Again, it's not for us to decide what these terms mean- we're just here to summarize sources.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 00:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Pregnant Latinas and their anchor fetuses

On January 31, 2008, the nations largest Hispanic civil rights group, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR), announced the launching of a campaign to end hate speech in the immigration debate, in an attempt to deal with the surge in hate speech and violence surrounding that debate.

Stating that “words have consequences,” Murguía pointed to an FBI report which shows a 23% rise in violence against Latinos. “To the Latino community,” said Murguía, “the surge in hate speech and violence is appalling. But, it should be appalling to everyone.”[7]

As part of that campaign, NCLR teamed up with other organizations[8] to create an anti-hate website entitled “We can stop the hate ”. On this website is a page called "Flash points"[9] that catalouges specific incidents, with dates and locations on the map. Amoung the incidents listed is the following one, which involved the use of the epithet towards a pregnant Latina:

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.[10]

This specific incident can also be seen here in this video[11], provided by the Border Project of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation[12]

I don't think that we can totally ignore this usage, reguardless as to whether it fits the "standard" definition. Such racially/ethnicly based usage of the epithet is a real word phenomina, and the application of the term to a pregnant Latina on the street who is a perfect stranger and whose personal citizenship and/or immigration status the Minutewoman using the epithet is not even in any concievable position to know is an example of this very phenomina of usage.

--Ramsey2006 (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Often used" is an inference

The statement that something is "often used" some way is a red flag for WP:OR. It needs at least one citation to show that the conclusion was made by someone reliable. Citing some usages is not an alternative. Dicklyon (talk) 16:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not tag substantiave edits with a (m). That notation is reserved for minor edits that are unlikely to be controversial, and can be confusing for other editors when used otherwise.--Ramsey2006 (talk)

Sorry, I don't know how I did that, but it was not intentional. It seems to be a side effect of twinkle rollback; anyone know how to tell it not to do that? Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I thought that it was intentional.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I found the twinkle docs and changed my parameters; seems like a lame default. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Will this do?[13]

Shamefully, the anti-illegal alien cohort also applies the term to any Mexican-American regardless of the legality of one or both parents, grandparents or great-grandparents.

Example: Janet Osborn's letter (Aug. 23). She labels all with Spanish surnames "anchor babies." "(Raoul) doesn't say how many (Latinos in prison who are not illegals) are anchor babies, grown up and taught to break our laws by their illegal parents ... after all, they broke our law coming here illegally and snub their noses at it."

Talk about a broad brush.

...

The media should voluntarily ban today's hate speech ("anchor babies") against Mexicans, Mexican-Americans and anyone with a Spanish surname, the fastest growing community in North County, just as it bans the N-word.

--Ramsey2006 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems marginal; it's an opinion piece (commentary), and doesn't use words like "racially charged" anyway. If you want to cite is as an opinion that the term is often misapplied to Latinos as a group, that would be OK, but to use it to support a conclusion stated as fact in the lead, it falls short, I think. Dicklyon (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I inserted the term often used to try to highlight the fact that there is contention as to whether or not the term is derogatory - that conclusion is not universally accepted. Sorry about the misplaced notability tag. I wanted to question the notability of one particular section; the coverage of one supposed minuteman supposedly yelling something - I don't think that is notable. - Schrandit (talk) 18:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So far every claim that those who use it are racist is not reliably sourced. I'm guessing that we won't find any reliable source regarding the motives of those who use it - calling a person bigoted is a matter of opinion, so most journalists and experts are out of their jurisdiction in making such a claim. Maybe a cognitive psychologist? It's possible that we could find a reliable source that the term itself is racist - I think it is but I have not found a good source for that. But just because a term is racially derogatory does not mean that every person who uses it, and every use, is racially derogatory. People use words in many different ways on many occasions. What we do have good sources for is that it's derogatory and pejorative, and that it is applied to all children of illegal immigrants whether or not they are intended, or actually serve, as facilitators for their parents' immigration. Also that it's a new neologism. It's been kicking around in some from since 1997 or so, and gained wider exposure in 2006. Still slang, not a standard term. Wikidemo (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikidemo, it seems to me that if it's been kicking around for 11 years, it's no longer a neologism. It may still be slang, but it's hardly new. After all, I remind you that terms like "to google" have been around for approximately the same amount of time. Or to take a more humorous take, if it's older than Wikipedia, Wikipedia has no business calling it young ;-) RayAYang (talk) 06:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

As words go, 11 years is pretty young. But it's a phrase not a word, so not really a neologism. Dicklyon (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Concerning nature of benefits, if any, conferred by anchor babies

I have removed two unsourced assertions.

1. The first assertion, regarding a 10 year ban, is not only unsourced and unverified, but possibly incorrect. Warning: I am not a lawyer, the following is purely based on a naive reading of the relevant portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is why I have not entered the data into the article. Also, it is possibly too complex and of only passing relevance to the subject of the article. There is a 10 year ban on re-entry following illegal presence, but it only applies if there is a continuous 6 months of illegal presence -- there is no requirement that it is a further delay on waiting for a child to reach 21 years of age, making the original assertion erroneous. There is a permanent ban on re-entry following an aggregate year of presesnce. Further, data on enforcement and application of these statutes is lacking, and in neither case do they go to the heart of the "anchor baby" issue.
2. The second assertion, that the vast majority of immigrants with citizen children in deportation proceedings are deported, is simply unsourced, and removed on that basis.

Some more sources for people wishing to improve the article: A New York Times piece, A Federalist Society Q&A with advocates and opponents of citizenship reform. RayAYang (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Even though this comment is a bit older, I want to add some information here, since there is a lot of confusion surrounding this, and there are several separate issues commingled here.

Most relevant here is that the parents indeed DO have to wait until the child is 21 years old (I provided the detailed cite directly to the section of the law further down in a separate section). This has nothing to do with the parents being legal or illegal; it applies to all parents. Immigration law simply does not provide an immigration category for parents of US citizen *children*, only for parents of US citizen adults. In practical terms, this means that an "anchor baby" can't serve as an anchor until the parents are nearing retirement age. More distant relatives can't immigrate at all based on an "anchor babies" because there is no immigration category for grandparents, uncles, nephews, etc.

As far as the bans go: there are quite a few different bans. I agree that they are not relevant to the anchor baby issue. After six months of unlawful presence (which is NOT the exact same thing as "being an illegal immigrant"), a three year ban applies. After one year of unlawful presence, the ban becomes 10 years. There is a lifetime ban that applies to immigration fraud cases (that has been used against those former Nazis who immigrated in the 1950s without disclosing their Nazi party membership).

It is indeed true that ICE routinely deports parents of US citizen children. As soon as I find the correct cite for verification, I will add that. Kevin M Keane (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Article getting too far afield

Let's keep in mind that we have a pre-existing article for the issue of Birthright citizenship in the United States of America.

This article is about the epithet "anchor baby". It is not about birthright citizenship issues. If we find ourselves putting up infoboxes soliticiting expertise in immigration law, then perhaps this is an indication that we are getting a little off track here in this article.

Note that the Wetback (slur) article does not contain an extensive discussion on Illegal immigration to the United States (and likely would not, even after recieving the bennifit of much needed attention). Similarly, there is no reason to include extensive legal information here in this article.

Let's remember what this article is about, and stay foccused on that. It is about a term, its definition, its history and its use. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 02:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we basically scrap the Immigration bennifits section, and that the Birthright citizenship section be kept essentially as is, as a stub with a link to the main article. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 03:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This article is about a particular aspect of the immigration debate in the United States, not merely the term, but the associated controversy as well. Whereas wetback is synonymous with and has little to add to the concept of illegal immigration from Mexico, "anchor baby" is a term which succinctly describes a highly controversial area of current immigration policy, currently not covered in its full aspect by neither the articles on illegal immigration nor the article on birthright citizenship, as it falls somewhere in between. The factual and legal background behind the "anchor baby" debate is of relevance to the article; it is quite possibly of greater relevance than selective quotations demonstrating use in a racially offensive manner. RayAYang (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If the article is not about the term anchor baby, then it needs to be renamed.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is about both the term and the concept. We do not have separate articles for the title "president of the United States" and the office. Nor separate articles for the "term" filibuster and the concept. An encyclopedia that only covers political rhetoric in terms of its etymology would be a poor one indeed. RayAYang (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

"Filibuster" is not a hate-filled epithet like "anchor baby" and 'wetback". Your analogies fall flat. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please address the logic of my remarks instead of throwing around irrelevant inflammatory terminology. We are well aware of your point of view concerning the usages of the term "anchor baby." No analogy is ever a perfect congruence. But I believe mine is accurate: you do not dispute that anchor baby is a succinct description for a notable political concept/topic. One which is not otherwise covered in its full aspect in Wikipedia. And that this article is the natural place to look for information concerning that topic. If you do dispute any of these propositions, please do so. RayAYang (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

If you are really looking for a NPOV article about some notable "new" political concept/topic (although you have yet to say exactly what it is), you might start by not using such inflamatory terminology as the title of the article. Try a more neutral and NPOV title for whatever the political concept/topic is that you believe needs to be written for inclusion in wikipedia. This is why we have separate articles for Wetback (slur) and Illegal immigrant. What is wrong with that precident? Why is such an inflamatory title for your concept/topic so necessary? I just don't understand the motivation for such an inflamatory title for such a topic. What is it that you really think that you will gain by using such an inflamatory title? --Ramsey2006 (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't pick the name. It happened. The anchor baby article resides at the juncture of two political topics -- that of birthright citizenship, and unwanted immigration by non-citizens (contrary to whatever Barrett claims, nobody has ever called me an anchor baby, despite being the child of naturalized citizens, and nobody is likely to in the near future). It is a subject of serious political contention; its scope, history, and ongoing effects are worthy of encyclopedic treatment; however, such a treatment would be too far afield for the article on birthright citizenship (which is, properly, not about contemporary political debates -- the information currently in the article there is as far as I think it should go), nor in the article on illegal immigration (since the topic extends to children born of birth tourism as well), and it is too specific a topic to include in a generalized article on immigration.

Generally speaking, I believe the information in these sections is reliably sourced, it is written from a neutral point of view, and it is of great relevance to the subject at hand and likely to be informative and helpful to those who come here looking to learn about anchor babies. That is sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia; and it is best to keep information relevant to a topic together unless there are really good reasons to the contrary.

If you have a reasonable alternative title that has actually seen regular usage, we can try that. I believe the term is less than complimentary, but not so inflammatory that, even in the absence of alternatives, we need to move information on this topic elsewhere. In other words, I do not think simple removal of the information can be justified; if you want to fork it elsewhere, a necessary but insufficient condition is to propose a viable alternative title that does not do unholy amounts of damage on the English language and the reader's comprehension. (i.e. I would not consider "US-born citizen children of immigrants who are alleged to be used to ensure immigration status even for immigrants who are already permeanent residents" a legitimate title)

It is not clear to me that making a fork in order to avoid offending certain sensibilities is always the correct thing to do -- I believe that anchor baby is less than complimentary, but then, so is Bastard, and there's an article on that at Bastard (Law of England and Wales), so the precedents go both ways. But the principal barrier to moving the information elsewhere, is absence of an alternative name, readily recognized, for the same phenomenon. When only the name proposed by one side is in common usage, it tends to be the one that gets used, POV or not. (see, e.g., USA PATRIOT Act) RayAYang (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

The Anchor baby entry should be about the slur rather than the concept. There is already an entry on Family reunification, with subsections on Europe and Canada but missing a subsection for Family reunification in United States. I suggest the Immigration benefits and Birthright citizenship sections are moved to that entry, optionally leaving a sentence here with wlinks. Terjen (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I second the suggestion. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I have moved most of the applicable content to Family reunification, as that is a better place to cover the concept rather than the slur. Terjen (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Eh. I would contest Terjen's recent actions, but the academic year is starting here, and I would rather contribute constructively to articles where useful information is appreciated rather than shunted off or removed, and editors do not engage in dramatic, far-fetched attempts to attach POV-pushing labels and definitions to terms. I wash my hands of this affair. To any future editors reading here who want a voice raised in support for balancing the article and actually covering the subject (which is most unsuitable for a general article on reunifying families): I'll be happy to drop a line. RayAYang (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The content wasn't shunted off or removed, but moved to a more fitting entry. On my talk page, you wrote I suppose family reunification is a better place to talk about the law. The Family reunification entry is far more prominent that Anchor baby judging from the pages that link to either. Terjen (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags still needed?

Are the tags for neutrality and factual accuracy in the current version still needed? Terjen (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. If no one else speaks up, I'll remove them soon. Richwales (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

They're gone. Richwales (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

And now, they're back. (I guess this is what happens, when you're away from Wikipedia for a week... to take care of life's activities. ;-)

Not a single person responded to my entry, in the Usage section above. As I pointed out there, major media sources that are very-commonly cited and are extremely well-known (more so even than Grant Barrett), such as NBC News and PBS anchor Bonnie Erbe in the The Seattle Times, have consistently regarded this term as referring only to children born of illegal aliens in the United States. Just a cursory search will reveal this; Lexis-Nexis can confirm that the most common usage of this term is for children born to those here illegally.

And as I also said there: If we want to include that "wider usage" in this article, then that is fine. But to have that less-common "wider usage" as the only definition of this term, while totally omitting the more-common and widely-cited usage, is absurd, dishonest, and is a clear case of allowing personal ideology to interfere with NPOV.

The way this article is currently written (and the way some people seem determined to keep it!) is an obvious violation of: Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight, as well as general accuracy and fairness principles.

Note: If you wish to respond to this post, but your response is about the "Usage" issue itself, then please instead respond to my post, in the pertinent section above.

Thank you, Pacificus (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's been a while, and I have no intention of engaging in an edit war or of burning more lifespan contesting the issue here, but I note my wholehearted endorsement of Pacificus' characterization of the current article as "absurd, dishonest, and a clear case of allowing personal ideology to interfer with NPOV." Ray (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lexicography

"Anchor baby" was a term unfamiliar to me before I read this article, to which I was linked by another Wikipedia item. As a lexicographer, I deal with language as it is, rather than as it might be or ought to be -- that is, my function is descriptive rather than prescriptive. While I find the use of ethnic and other slurs deplorable in what are supposed to be reasonable discussions of opinion and factuality, it is nevertheless my job to observe what is being said, civil or not, and how it is said. In this connection "anchor baby," like it or not, seems to be well established as an etymon with a pretty specific range of meanings, and therefore cross-reference to and from it seems to me a valid function within the Wikipedian universe of discourse. --NDH75.35.242.5 (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Famous People

I think maybe there should be a list of famous people who would be "anchor babies" by definition of the term. Michelle Malkin comes to mind; her parents were not citizens but she was born here, so she claims to be a U. S. citizen. Given that she has been an extremely vocal opponent of birthright citizenship, it is therefore extremely notable that she would not be a legal citizen by her own standards.Stonemason89 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Depends on how one defines "anchor baby" as to whether or not Malkin qualifies as one. The term generally refers to a baby born on U.S. soil which not only gets citizenship themselves but also becomes a path for citizenship for the parents, or at least keeps them from being deported (hence the "anchor"). Malkin's parents were already in the country legally at the time she was born, here on student visas; in other words, they didn't need her to be their anchor. Nolefan32 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Totally aside from whether or not Michelle Malkin is an "anchor baby": Given that the term is widely perceived as derogatory, I don't think such a list would be appropriate here — any more than a list of famous African-Americans would belong in the article on the "N-word". It would, on the other hand, certainly be reasonable to consider such a list in the (more neutral) article on Birthright citizenship in the United States of America. Careful, though, not to editorialize on the apparent incongruity of Malkin's position on birthright citizenship (though a notable quote from someone to that effect, suitably cited to a reliable source, might be OK). Richwales (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

To the OP please see WP:POINT. Please do not disrupt wikipedia in an attempt to "make a point". Thank you.--Jersey Devil (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree

I disagree that the article is not neutral or not verifiable or factually accurate. I argue political considerations have made certain groups allege fallaciously, these claims.Starstylers (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

"Some activists and propaganda publishers claim the term is derogatory"

I object to this edit, which changes the lede to say that "Some activists and propaganda publishers claim the term is derogatory" (whereas the original text flat-out said "anchor baby" is a derogatory term and provided several references for this statement).

If nothing else, this edit suffers from the problem that the existing sources in the article do not refer to people who use the term as "activists" or "propaganda publishers". Thus, characterizing them in such a way violates WP:V, WP:SOURCE, and WP:OR. But even if the sources did say such a thing, we would still need to phrase the wording carefully to avoid violating WP:NPOV.

I believe there is ample substantiation in the existing sources to support the assertion that "anchor baby" is considered derogatory by the mainstream, not simply by a small fringe. FWIW, a group of editors did go over this issue at considerable length a year or two ago and ended up concluding that we can and should say that "anchor baby" is in fact a derogatory term, and that it would be POV not to acknowledge this as a fact.

I reverted this edit once, but someone else (or, for all I know, possibly the same anon using a different IP address) reverted back. I was strongly tempted to re-revert on the basis that the "activists and propaganda publishers" bit is unsourced, unverifiable, and POV — but rather than engage in an edit war, I would like to suggest that we should all discuss this question again and try (if possible) to reach a new consensus. Comments? Richwales (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The second sentence of the article's lead paragraph says, "It is generally used as a derogatory reference ...". That seems entirely sufficient. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed the words at issue in this edit with an edit summary saying, "Revert POV characterization not supported by cited source (The New York Times). The cited source does claim that the term is derogatory." before seeing this discussion and after looking at only the first of the four(!!) supporting sources cited. Yes, some "activists and propaganda publishers" (AaPP) do claim the term is derogatory. However, some who are not AaPP also make this claim. Please note WP:UNDUE. In the case of the four cited supporting sources,

• The cited New York Times article claims that the term is derogatory. There is lots of [[criticism of the New York Times], but I wouldn't call them an AaPP.
• The cited San Diego union-Tribune piece calls the term "pejorative". The source is probably not AaPP.
• The cited Chicago Tribune piece is a response to complaints about having used the term which ends up characterizing the term as "loaded language". Not AaPP when he used the term, methinks.
• The cited Doubletongued.org entry doesn't characterize the term as derogatory. :I'm not sure of the WP:RS status of that source, but it's probably not AaPP.

After this second look, I stand by my edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Gosh, it's been a while since I dropped by this page. The term is loaded, but I can't support the claim that it's meant to apply to children of all immigrants - that, in my reading of the American political discourse, is an absurd and fringe interpretation. I think the current wording of the lead is an acceptable compromise, even if "some" is weaselly. The actual text of the article can stand to be cleaned up. Ray^Talk 03:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange opening sentence

"An anchor baby is a child born in the United States to illegal aliens..." It's a child whose status may help immigrants remain in the country, but the parents hardly need to be "illegal" (a blatantly pov term to begin with, but that's another issue) prior to conception or birth. 72.229.61.134 (talk) 00:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that opening sentence is horribly offensive. An anchor baby is not "a child...", it's a stupid term for "a child..." The former wording implied that that's the standard, accepted term for such an individual, which is beyond asinine. I reworded to make it clear that we're talking about a term and not some peculiar brand of child.--Cúchullain ^t/c 23:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Derogatory

Every source that I checked that actually discusses the term itself, rather than just uses or mentions it, describes it as derogatory. It cannot be said that it is "sometimes considered to be" derogatory; it is indeed derogatory. This needs to be clear.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

1 - surely you would concede that it is used by more than just 1 side in the debate

2 - it is not exclusively used in a derogatory sense, many people (including, from a quick google-search CNN and presidential candidate Ron Paul) use it in the context of the every day illegal immigration debate. It is worthwhile to note that some people have used it in a derogatory context, it is inaccurate to blanketly describe the term as derogatory. - Schrandit (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's very well established that the term is disparaging, just look at virtually every one of sources that discuss the term itself (as opposed to just using or mentioning it). Of course that's different than saying it's an outright slur or only used to cause offense, but the whole point of the term is to criticize immigrants or immigration policy. This ranges from people who criticize the action of immigrants coming to the US to have, to those who want to deport these children despite them being natural-born US citizens. But it's always disparaging. And no, it's not fair to say that it is used by both sides of the debate. The two examples you've given - Lou Dobbs and Ron Paul - are no exceptions, they are both what one could call "immigration reductionists".--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Heavy bias

The article is heavily biassed, in particular the following section:

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."

The mere fact that someone has written something in an article or book does not make it true. Mr. Grant Barrett's allegations are absolutely non-sensical, since legal immigrants do not need anchor babies. They are already in the country legally, being legal immigrants, and whether they have kids or not does not change their immigration status or citizenship prospects. Hence the application of the term anchor baby to their children is a non-sequitur, and I've never heard or read it anywhere in the alleged way.

Mr. Garrett tries to brand all people, each and every one, who use the term anchor babies, as racists and xenophobes. This attempt is too cheap to fool anyone, and only somebody with a vested interest or an agenda could have quoted him in wikipedia. By the way, I never heard his name before - is he someone you have to know, like Abraham Lincoln or Thomas Jefferson ? -- Alexey Topol (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

We're discussing a phrase. Barrett is a lexicographer, meaning someone who specializes in defining words. We attribute his views to him, so readers know that it's his opinion. We don't present it as "the truth". WP:NPOV call on us to include all significant view, with weight proportional to their prominence. If there is a prominent view that we haven't included then let's add it.   Will Beback  talk  19:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence again

Once again, this article is about a term that some people apply to children, it is not about a peculiar breed of child. Implying that it is is highly offensive.--Cúchullain ^t/c 11:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Remove article bias and incorrect cites.

This article describes not just a derogatory term, but also one that is based on a fundamentally false legal assumption.

Unfortunately, the way the opening statement is phrased reinforces this false assumption and is thus misleading. Inserting the word "supposed" is not enough of a disclaimer, especially not since the statement later improperly claims authority based on a very specific law.

The opening statement mentions family reunification and claims a basis in the "Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965". However, the INA actually says the opposite.

Parents (let alone more distant relatives) do NOT receive any immigration benefits (at least not until the child is an adult, more than two decades later). In fact, despite frequent editorials to the contrary, such parents are routinely deported from the USA.

In addition, the opening statement heavily cites news media editorials. It fails to cite the actual Immigration and Nationality Act that would show the claim to be false. The section of the INA is Section 201(2)(A)(i), currently available http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-914.htmlKevin M Keane (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know dawg, from a quick google search it sound like once the kid is 21 the parents have a huge advantage in the immigration process. - Schrandit (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The key point is that it takes about 23 years for the parents (21 is the age when the child can START the process, it takes another about two years to complete). If the parents are age 25 when they have their US citizen child, they couldn't immigrate until they are almost 50. It plain makes no sense to put life plans on hold for that long.

Also keep in mind that the term "anchor baby" as used by most people implies that a whole extended family could immigrate ("chain migration" is another term sometimes used in this context). But in reality, even this one heavily delayed benefit pretty much stops at the parents. Let's say that the mother is 25 years old when they decide to take this approach for immigration to the USA. They also want to bring the mother's brother (age 27) to the USA. They would get started by getting pregnant. By the time the child is born, the mother is probably about 27 and the uncle is 29.

The mother could then immigrate when she is age 50. At age 55, she would become a US citizen and could file a petition for her brother (age 57 at that time). That takes currently (as of June 2010) between 15 and 23 years. So the uncle would be going on 80 before he could immigrate through the use of an "anchor baby".

Basically, it simply makes no sense to take this approach. Kevin M Keane (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That may well be true. In fact, there may be few actual "anchor babies" according to the definition of the term. But the term is used by pundits and others. Perhaps when they us the term they are including all children of illegal immigrants born in the US, even when the parents have no expectation that the birth will not speed up their progress towards citizenship.   Will Beback  talk  05:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some technicalities are wrong

The history and usage section says "...who will later sponsor citizenship..."

This is inaccurate; citizenship is never sponsored. Citizenship is granted by the USA to people who have been legal permanent residents (i.e., Green Card holders) for a minimum of five years. Becoming a legal permanent resident requires several things:

- A sponsor (that is what the US citizen child can indeed do) - A petition (also known as I-130 after the form it is filed on) - A quota number (a quota number indicates that you have reached the "head of the line" waiting for your Green Card. Depending on the preference category and your country of birth, it usually takes between 12 and 23 years). - An immigrant visa or an application to adjust status (I-485).

There is one exception: immediate relatives don't require a quota number. Immediate relatives are spouses of US citizens (this is why by some estimates about half of all spousal immigration cases are fraudulent marriages), as well as parents of ADULT US citizens.

The other family-based immigration categories are: Family 1st: *unmarried* adult children of US citizens. This category takes between 10 and 15 years to get a quota number. Family 2nd: spouses and unmarried children of legal permanent residents. This takes about five to six years, and is the only family immigration category where the sponsor does not have to be a citizen. Family 3rd: married adult children of US citizens. This category takes between 10 and 15 years. Family 4th: brothers and sisters of US citizens. This category takes between 15 and 23 years.

Anybody who doesn't fit into one of these categories cannot immigrate to the USA through family at all. Kevin M Keane (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)