Foxfyre wrote:(P.S. If you want to go to the trouble of posting all of them, that's cool. Please don't just cherry pick something out of context so that you can make it look ugly, however.)
Right. Well, you said before (right here -->
click me) regarding the term "anchor baby":
Foxfyre wrote: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.
Let's examine that statement. You posted a list of links (right here -->
click me) to substantiate your claim that the term "anchor baby" was used pretty much universally.
A link to a letter written by Allan E. Wall, an American citizen who has lived and worked in Mexico since 1991, denouncing "present U.S. anchor baby "policy" is an abuse of the 14th Amendment".
The website itself (American Patrol) is clearly partisan, anti-immigration. The first item in their navigation menu is "Report Illegals".
Not really evidence that the term "anchor baby" is being used pretty much universally.
Surprisingly, this link sends us to the same anti-immigration website: American Patrol (incidentally, they also own the website "www.americanborderpatrol.com")
I'll count this and the previous link together as one.
This is what you get, following the link:
Quote:anchor baby
Anchor baby is term used to refer to a child born in the United States to illegal aliens or other non-citizens. The term refers to a resident alien's child's role in facilitating "chain migration" under the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Services Act of 1965. It is considered pejorative by some.[1][2] Nativists claim that the baby would become the "anchor" of a chain by which its family may receive benefits from social programs, and by which that family's members may themselves eventually become citizens of the United States.
While not being evidence for pretty much universal usage, it seems to confirm the suspicions that the term might be deemed pejorative.
This is what CAIR (the Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform) writes:
Quote:Anchor baby
An anchor baby is a child born to illegal alien parents within the borders of the United States. The child is born as an American citizen and under the 1965 immigration Act, can be used to facilitate citizenship for the immediate - and ultimately the extended - family.
<snip>
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens to defy U.S. law at taxpayer expense.
CAIR clearly has an anti-immigration agenda, to be found under "about us":
Quote:CAIR supports the principles of the ASAP! Alliance for Stabilizing America's Population, formulated in Colorado in 1997. This action plan consists of the following points:
1. Immigration Moratorium
2. No More Amnesties
3. Enforce Immigration Laws
4. No Citizenship for Illegal Aliens' Offspring
Now, another anti-immigration website, opposed to the 14th Amendment.
I don't think that this is evidence that the term "anchor baby" is being used pretty much universally.
Quote:anchor baby n. a child born of an immigrant in the United States, said to be a device by which a family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose American citizenship. Also anchor child, a very young immigrant who will later sponsor citizenship for family members who are still abroad.
And what follows is a pretty good list of citation about when the term "anchor baby" or the apparently related term "anchor child" has been used before. A really interesting and good resource.
However, check out the point "about us" on their website:
Quote:About Double-Tongued Word Wrester
The Double-Tongued Dictionary records undocumented or under-documented words from the fringes of English. It focuses upon slang, jargon, and other niche categories which include new, foreign, hybrid, archaic, obsolete, and rare words.
So, if anything at all, this is evidence to the contrary when it comes to pretty much universal usage of the term "anchor baby".
Nevertheless, an interesting resource.
Well, this one is ridiculous. All there is on that site is an anonymous guy using the "answers" feature at Yahoo!, asking
Do you think that counts towards pretty much universal usage, or matter-of-factly representation of a specific issue? I don't know.
Uhm. There's no single mention of the term "anchor baby" in that article. Nothing. Nada.
What's this about?
Quote:Louisiana's Anchor Baby Crisis
The New Orleans health system is overwhelmed with a massive baby boom generated by pregnant illegal immigrants participating in the ailing city's post Hurricane Katrina reconstruction efforts.
More than 1,200 pregnant illegal immigrants have received U.S. taxpayer-funded prenatal care this year alone from the Louisiana Department of Health and many more have shown up in labor at emergency rooms, where they are required by federal law to be treated even if they are in the country illegally.
Okay. So who's "Judicial Watch Inc."?
Quote:Judicial Watch, Inc., a conservative, non-partisan educational foundation, promotes transparency, accountability and integrity in government, politics and the law.
Okay. A conservative foundation. Still, I guess that counts.
Now, this one's really embarrassing. You misread. Nothing to do with "anchor babies". Uhm, look again, and don't miss the description right after the picture:
Yeah. A "100% cotton baby rib" shirt, with an anchor logo. Nothing to do with "anchor baby".
Oooooh, a song titled "anchor baby". Great. It's a song about a boy and a girl. Let's look at the lyrics:
Quote:nothing could join them,
except maybe one thing,
just maybe...
something to anchor their spirits....
they had a baby.
but to give birth to a baby
they needed a crane.
the umbilical cord
was in the form of a chain.
ı t was ugly and gloomy,
and as hard as a kettle.
ıt had no pink skin,
just heavy gray metal.
the baby that was meant
to bring them together,
just shrouded them both
in a cloud of foul weather.
Yeah. Nice title. Just nothing to do with immigration. Not really. Don't think so. No. Unlikely.
Yeah, blablablaNEWS sounds always good. But if you had looked at the website, you would have noticed that this is merely a post by some unknown guy. It has as much credibility as someone posting here on A2K. If I started a thread about "blue hedgehogs" tomorrow, I don't think that would count as evidence of pretty much universal usage of the term "blue hedgehogs".... wouldn't you agree.
)
)
