What should be done about illegal immigration?

OE did misrepresent what I said when he left off the qualifier 'pretty much'; however, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that this was inadvertent and did not intend to change my meaning. (And that was a GENEROUS benefit of the doubt considering how often he does misrepresent what I have said.)

You said that the term was used pretty much universally. You said that the term was in no way denigrating. You said that the term was honest and descriptive.

People, in turn, have argued that usage of that term was in no way universal, and that it was indeed defamatory and denigrating. You're twisting that into "other people dictating what words people are allowed to use".

And the funny thing is that you're the one who always complains about other posters misrepresenting what has been said...

Technically 'universally' and 'pretty much universally' are pretty much different things.

Foxfyre wrote:

I will note that you object to the term 'anchor baby' that is used pretty much universally and is in no way denigrating except that you choose to make it so. The term is just an honest and descriptive term rathert han having to say "a child born to a mother who entered the country illegally to have her baby here so that her child would be a U.S. citizen and she would thus be less likely to be deported."

You said that the term was used pretty much universally. You said that the term was in no way denigrating. You said that the term was honest and descriptive.

People, in turn, have argued that usage of that term was in no way universal, and that it was indeed defamatory and denigrating. You're twisting that into "other people dictating what words people are allowed to use".

And the funny thing is that you're the one who always complains about other posters misrepresenting what has been said...

I have not said the term was used universally and you'll be unable to show where I have even suggested that. This is one misrepresentation of what I have said.

When the personally directed inference is that I am flat out bigoted, racist, defamatory, etc. etc. etc. because i use a term that I feel is quite acceptable to use, yes I do take that as somebody dictating to me what is and is not acceptable to say.

Now if you have an argument for that, let's hear it.

I do resent being mischaracterized in a dishonest way. I might even object to a term used by somebody and I am prepared to explain why. You won't find me presuming to tell other people who they are, what they mean, what they intend via their posts when they are not personally directing their remarks, however.

Okay I stand corrected on that one. I also misspoke. I should have added the phrase that it is used pretty much universally by those who are closely following immigration issues. But I didn't so you got me on that one.

Foxfyre wrote:

OE did misrepresent what I said when he left off the qualifier 'pretty much'; however, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that this was inadvertent and did not intend to change my meaning. (And that was a GENEROUS benefit of the doubt considering how often he does misrepresent what I have said.)

Beg your pardon?

old europe wrote:

You said that the term was used pretty much universally. You said that the term was in no way denigrating. You said that the term was honest and descriptive.

People, in turn, have argued that usage of that term was in no way universal, and that it was indeed defamatory and denigrating. You're twisting that into "other people dictating what words people are allowed to use".

And the funny thing is that you're the one who always complains about other posters misrepresenting what has been said...

See my post here --> click me!!

I have the feeling that you misrepresent what I've been saying more often than the other way 'round. But I won't complain. I will merely point it out to you, and I'll try to do so in a polite way...

Well since I got several hundred hits in a very cursory search, maybe those who have never heard the term anchor baby aren't as well read as they think? I posted several of those today. And by no means are all of them conservative biased sources.

McGentrix wrote:

Am I understanding correctly that some here have never heard the term "anchor baby" before?

Yes. Almost none of us have heard/read this term before. And as (was it?) cyclo noted earlier, it isn't as if we don't read a lot.

I doubt I could devise a better example to demonstrate the echo-chamber some of you folks live inside.

Anchor babies is not a racist term. ANYbody of ANY race of ANY nationality, ANY color, ANY ethnicity who intentionally has a baby in the USA so that she cannot be as easily deported is having an ANCHOR BABY. That is the fact, pure and simple. It infers or says NOTHING about her feelings for, love for, ambitions for, etc. etc. etc. her baby. YOU are the one who attached a racist term to the prhase and draws all kinds of leftwing wacko inferences from it.

The immigration issue is not one that is on the front pages of every newspaper every day. Did you even look into any of the links I posted? These are not wacko fringe sources, but every single one seemed to deal with the phrase rather matter-of-factly.

blatham wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Am I understanding correctly that some here have never heard the term "anchor baby" before?

Yes. Almost none of us have heard/read this term before. And as (was it?) cyclo noted earlier, it isn't as if we don't read a lot.

I doubt I could devise a better example to demonstrate the echo-chamber some of you folks live inside.

I find it highly dubious that you folks have not heard the term "anchor baby" before, considering many of you like to consider yourselves well read.

"anchor baby" get 91,000+ hits on google.

Is this another case of "tar baby" and "niggardly"? Words that get libbies all bent out of shape?

Foxfyre wrote:

The immigration issue is not one that is on the front pages of every newspaper every day. Did you even look into any of the links I posted? These are not wacko fringe sources, but every single one seemed to deal with the phrase rather matter-of-factly.

Foxy, are you really prepared to stand by that statement? Because I have been looking at every single one of the links you gave, and I'm prepared to do it again and post the contents of the websites you linked to on this thread...

And are you not going to respond to my previous posts directed specifically to you at all?

old europe wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

OE did misrepresent what I said when he left off the qualifier 'pretty much'; however, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that this was inadvertent and did not intend to change my meaning. (And that was a GENEROUS benefit of the doubt considering how often he does misrepresent what I have said.)

Beg your pardon?

old europe wrote:

You said that the term was used pretty much universally. You said that the term was in no way denigrating. You said that the term was honest and descriptive.

People, in turn, have argued that usage of that term was in no way universal, and that it was indeed defamatory and denigrating. You're twisting that into "other people dictating what words people are allowed to use".

And the funny thing is that you're the one who always complains about other posters misrepresenting what has been said...

See my post here --> click me!!

I have the feeling that you misrepresent what I've been saying more often than the other way 'round. But I won't complain. I will merely point it out to you, and I'll try to do so in a polite way...

I acknowledge that you did use the term 'pretty much' in that paragraph. Then you followed with: People, in turn, have argued that usage of that term was in no way universal, That's the phrase I honed in on. Sorry about that. I think, however, that I made a pretty good case that for people closely following the immigration issue, the term is pretty well universally understood, so I disagree that it is in no way universal.

I do not mind people pointing it out to me when they feel I have misunderstood or mischaracterized them. I actually appreciate when they make that kind of effort to help me understand where they are coming from. Calling me a liar in the process, however, is not polite nor helpful.

I also appreciate people understanding or making an effort to understand where I am coming from instead of presuming to dictate that to me.

You didn't read any of those links did you Obill? If you had, you would have seen other uses of the term applied other than to Mexican anchor babies. There are more instances involving people from south of the border than is occuring otherwise at present, so if we tell it like it is, it is not all that unusual for that particular part of the problem to be cited as current examples. Of course your constant barrage of personal insults is probably blinding you to any possibility of objectivity.

Foxfyre wrote:

Obill, I will note that you object to the term 'anchor baby' that is used pretty much universally and is in no way denigrating except that you choose to make it so. The term is just an honest and descriptive term [..]

ANYbody of ANY race of ANY nationality, ANY color, ANY ethnicity who intentionally has a baby in the USA so that she cannot be as easily deported is having an ANCHOR BABY. That is the fact, pure and simple. It infers or says NOTHING about her feelings for, love for, ambitions for, etc. etc. etc. her baby.

Walter Hinteler wrote:

According to wikipedia an "Anchor baby is a pejorative term used to refer to a child born in the United States to illegal aliens or other non-citizens."

Right. I looked something up - just curious.

Apparently, "anchor baby" as a term is so "universally" used, and so harmless, in no way denigrating, an honest descriptive, that apart from the Wikipedia entry and its copy on answers.com, the first ten Google results are made up of

• "americanpatrol.com" (2x),
  
• "theamericanresistance.com",
  
• "vdare.com" (by the author of "Alien Nation: Common Sense About America's Immigration Disaster")
  
• and two sites that reference the term sarcastically and between quotation marks, as in "I'm No 'Anchor Baby,' I'm an American".

The only mainstream source on that first page is a local South-Florida NBC affiliate, which reports, in your generally undenigrating way: ""Anchor babies" are children born in the United States to parents who are illegal immigrants. The babies are automatically American citizens and get all the rights and financial help as any other American child. NBC2 discovers what rights these families have and why you're paying their bills."

Oh, I forgot one link, which in fact is a nice supplement to the Wikipedia entry: the entry for "anchor baby" in the Urban Dictionary. The first definition there explains that an "anchor baby" is "also called a "jackpot baby". The illustration sentences for the three definitions there are, respectively:

Quote:

- Maria, an illegal alien from Mexico, had her baby in the USA. Thanks to her anchor baby, now she and her whole family can live in the US.

- That mexican girl's gonna drop an anchor baby.

- I caught my girlfriend flushing her pill and poking holes in all the condoms... I think she wants an anchor baby.

Yep - nice.

In short, in the top ten results in Google for "anchor baby", there is not a single occurrence where the word is used in, or referenced as used in, the unjudgemental, merely "honest and descriptive", "in no way denigrating" way that Fox says is its universal use.

----------

Is any of this important? All this ballyhoo about a word? Well, it certainly seems to confirm that the "universal" in Foxfyre's sentence is a falsehood. Except, notably, in the telling way in which it reveals something about what her personal "universe" on this subject is informed by.