Fox Nation uses "derogatory, even racist" term "anchor babies"
The Fox Nation linked to an article reporting on how "Republican lawmakers in Congress are sponsoring a bill that seeks to abolish birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents" using the headline, "GOP Targets 'Anchor Babies.'" Several media outlets have identified the term "anchor babies" as, in the words of the Rocky Mountain News, "derogatory, even racist, because it implies that Hispanics are having children as a way to stay in the U.S."
Fox Nation uses "anchor babies" slur
From Fox Nation's website, accessed February 17:
Despite appearing in quotes in Fox Nation's headline, the term appears nowhere in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin article to which Fox Nation linked.
Several media outlets have identified term as "derogatory," "pejorative"
Rocky Mountain News: Term "considered by many to be derogatory, even racist." An August 2006 Rocky Mountain News article reported of children born in the United States to undocumented immigrants: "Opponents of illegal immigration call them 'anchor babies' - a term considered by many to be derogatory, even racist, because it implies that Hispanics are having children as a way to stay in the U.S."
San Diego Union-Tribune, Reno Gazette-Journal: Term is "pejorative." An April 2006 San Diego Union-Tribune article stated that an anti-immigration activist "dismissed teens marching in Los Angeles as 'probably part of the anchor baby-boom of the late 1980s and 1990s,' using a pejorative term for the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants." Likewise, an October 2008 Reno Gazette-Journal article reported that "[s]ome opponents of illegal immigration call such children 'anchor babies,' a pejorative term that implies the child will serve as an 'anchor' for his or her illegal immigrant parents, preventing the parents' deportations and acting as a pathway to citizenship for the whole family." [accessed from the Nexis database]
Chicago Tribune's Zorn: Term is "loaded language." In an August 2006 blog post, columnist Eric Zorn wrote that after receiving complaints for his prior use of the term:
I defended myself -- the term has appeared regularly in news stories since 1997, usually softened by quotations as in my column, and refers to the practice/hopes of illegal immigrants that if their children are born in the U.S. they will serve as an anchor that will help allow their parents to say here. And Doug Rivlin, spokesman for the National Immigration Forum, a leading immigrants'-rights group, said he does not consider the term particularly offensive.
However, Rivlin said, it's a "politically charged term" originated and favored by those who are opposed to liberalized immigration laws. And a quick check through various sources confirms this.
"They use it to spark resentment against immigrants," Rivlin said of his ideological foes. "They use it to make these children sound non-human."
To me, that's good enough reason to regret having used it and to decide not to use it in the future.
Sound arguments don't need loaded language.
What a ridiculous and weak thread this is.
This is just another example of that.
Victor Red River calls Mexicans that swim the Rio Grande "WET BACKS"
Your text to link here...
ENHANCED INTERROGASHUN 4 FREEDOM!!!!!1!!!wolverines!!!!
For example, "W" was a "jackpot baby", seein' as how he was born with the silver spoon in his widdle mouth. All Republicans and their apologists are "flypaper babies" because they march in lockstep and stick to the propaganda, regardless of how silly and stupid it sounds. And I believe Michelle Malkin is a true "anchor baby", if you wish to use that parlance, because her Dad just had a work visa when she belched forth into the world and made it a little less civilized.
The term "prejudice" also comes from Latin. "Pre" meaning before and "judice" meaning judgment. In other words, it is sheer prejudice to judge those people and assume that they have children just to stay in this country without knowing their situations first hand.
Tell why that's not good enough, and (just for my amusment) try to do so without revealing your revulsion for brown people.
----------------------------------------------------------
Goodluckwithat.
That's if you agree to engage the term based on motives at all, but it appears you both are, so I'm just responding to that. Perhaps the term is not accurate at all, but to address the way you both use it:
The adjective "anchor" is being used to describe the plural noun "babies". It's not descriptive, technically, of anything else. Now, let's grant that no one is using the term anchor to mean that the babies are literally being used to hook ships into a docking post or slow their movements.
Even if the people in question didn't have babies for the express purpose of staying here, since having these babies would allow them to stay here. Thus, in effect, those babies do "anchor" the people to this country, regardless of intentions behind the pregnancy.
I know, I'm being the annoying guy parsing words.
WTF? Um... NO. It ISN'T. How can "Anchor BABIES" describe "[people] who choose to have their babies here?"
Seems to me "Anchor BABIES" can ONLY describe THE CHILDREN. The "BABIES."
(Duh.)
-------------------------------------------
Children who are BORN IN THE USA, I might add. Somehow that's not good enoiugh for them to be "Real 'Muricans" though.
It's accurate in the same way that "slanty-eyed" is accurate to describe an Asian.
Since you are demeaning and cheapening the N word to compare it to anchor babies, please tell me exactly how the term anchor implies anything about one's race, like the N word does explicitly.
I'm at a loss over the concern that the 'N' word can be cheapened.
How about using 'Bible thumper' to describe all Christians? Accurate? Derogatory?
What race of people would YOU say are doing this? The Irish? The Hungarians? The Ceylonese? Nah... I'll go out on a limb and guess that you'd say this is primarily a latin-american issue. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
You are lamenting the fact that people abuse the "born here = citizen" situation, but, as I said, you didn't anwer my question:
HOW ELSE SHOULD IT WORK? WHY IS BEING BORN IN THIS COUNTRY NOT ENOUG FOR YOU TO ASSUME/GRANT THEIR CITIZENSHIP?
The only "tried and true tactic" I used here was to ASK A SIMPLE QUESTION. Yes, I took a 'cheap shot' with the 'brown people' remark, fair enough, but you still chose to evade the question (whine about it, really) rather than answer it. And that's the "tried and true tactic" of conservatives "who can't argue [ANY] issue."
----------------------------------------------------------
So why don't you try answering my question in a principled manner then?
You're wrong. The first I heard the phrase was in reference to the slew of russian immigrants in northeast philadelphia, many of who came here illegally through canada. I worked with a few of them, and they jokingly used the term when talking about their status here.
the crack research staff at mmfa, and you lemmings here, are race-bating twits.
It's a pathetic argument with no merit. Please, show me again where anchor has any racial element in it at all.
The only time it is not ok it it is inaccurate. This is not.
It certainly has no positive connotation, and it isn't used to described AMERICANS. So it's xenophiboic at best, and considering that the Right's idea of 'immigration reform' is bulding a 20' high fence along our southern border, I don't think "racist" is THAT FAR from the point.
But still no one has answered my question:
HOW ELSE SHOULD IT WORK? WHY IS BEING BORN IN THIS COUNTRY NOT ENOUGH FOR YOU TO ASSUME/GRANT THEIR CITIZENSHIP?
----------------------------------------
Anyone want to give that a try?
In your first sentence you unequivocally state that all of them are anchor babies, but in the next, you refer to only "some." Those two things do not correlate.
In any event, you are now dancing (argumentatively speaking, of course). You first asserted that the government "never" deported a mother while a child remained here, now, faced with proof that the government indeed does, you have moved on to saying that the parents are ultimately to blame for splitting up their families. My refuting your first argument and your adoption of the latter seems to contradict the notion that the children are indeed serving as "anchor babies."
From the recent study which is linked above:
In the long term, at least 20 families in our study experienced the deportation of a parent and were forced to confront painful decisions about whether children would leave the country with the deported parent or remain in the United States with either the other parent or another relative.
In eight of these families, some or all of the children went with one or both parents to the parents’ countries of origin, and in 12 cases, children remained in the United States, separated from one of their parents. The whole family
left to join the deported parent in some of these cases, while in others the parents and siblings were split between countries...
Finally, in a few cases, parents returned illegally to the United States to be reunited with their children and families. The return journeys were rough, and one parent died the day after he
was reunited with his family.
They are US citizens.
It IS a derogatory term. It is intended to question the motives of the parents/mothers, but it describes the innocent babies who are US citizens per the US Constitution's 14th Amendment, which says that being born on US soil is 100% sufficient to be an American citizen.
It not only describes the babies, but it pushes an ideological slant. They are US citizens. Any failings of their parents/mothers to enter the USA illegally is a separate issue.
In any event, this thread is speaking only to the descriptor, the term anchor babies. That is an absolute accurate term when it describes someone who has a baby so they can be anchored to this country. Some may not like it, like MMfA and their cherry picked reporters, but so what? It is perfectly correct.
It has nothing to do with race, or ideology, or the child's innocence, or whether or not they are valid citizens.
And yeah, I understand that I derailed your whole argument, which is why you felt compelled to unleash your personal animus with a baseless ad hominem attack suggesting that I am derailing the topic by addressing the very issue that MMFA did! That's rich.
You are so simple.
It's not anchored parents. It's anchor babies. It's the babies who anchor a family member.
Anchor is an adjective that describes babies.
And the babies are US citizens. And it's a derogatory way to describe a person.
You are so wrong.
Would you tell a mother-to-be that she lacked integrity because she is choosing to carry her child even though she is just going to put the baby up for adoption?
If you would not, why do you condemn a mother who would perhaps make the hard decision to provide her child with an opportunity at a better life (staying in the U.S.) rather than return to an inferior (in her mind) environment?
Most mothers don't get pregnant and put their babies up for adoption either. Sometimes, albeit painful, mothers make decisions which are in the best interests of their children...go figure.
The adoptive mother is a prostitute who has sex for $5 and crack cocaine on Saturdays in between selling knockoff Gucci bags filled with dirty needles to schoolchildren. Now, if she gets pregnant and puts her child up for adoption, will you condemn that decision, i.e. to put her child up for adoption as lacking in integrity?
By the way, do you see how ridiculous your position in support of avoidance of the question is?
Any sane individual would say that, that is the ONE virtuous act that the mom-to-be did. I just want him to see that life involves complex choices that don't easily lend themselves to blanket denunciations.
A woman (or couple) who choose to adopt her child as opposed to aborting it or keeping it if she feels she is unable to properly care for it is a hero. She is putting the life and well being above her child above anything else. If she chooses to keep the child and can raise it properly, she is also a hero.
A woman (a couple) who decides in order to stay here illegally, continuing to stay in a country that she entered illegally, is going to have a baby on American soil so that it will make much more difficult to deport her is putting her own needs ahead of that child, in the first place, and is no hero. At best an opportunist.
If you're still confused, too bad.
There are indeed circumstances in life that human beings face that call for tough decisions. One of those decisions may be that it is best for a child to remain in the U.S. even though he/she, the parent, is being deported. Simply slapping the "Lacks Integrity" label on everyone who is called upon to make that decision is naive at best.
Now, are you going to keep introducing irrelevant examples to make some point, because it's not really working.
Baloney. If there is any emotional distress it is the family's choice. To avoid it, take the baby back home then. Leave the country where you reside illegally and do the right thing. Any torn apart stress is chosen.
Again you have fallen back on a false premise.
Maybe these anchor moms should just get abortions. Problem solved.
The bill to single ACORN out for a specific punishment re: funding already shows this, along with the idea that Muslims be investigated as "terrorist sympathizers" before they can become congressional aides.
We'd have to amend the Constitution to do this, and something tells me, that ain't gonna happen.
Oh, I'm sure they do cuga. They know it's not going anywhere, but this kind of thing plays very well with the base. The base on the other hand is expected to not put much thought into it whatsoever other than, "My Congressman is trying to stop these illegals and those liberals won't let him."
Anchor babies can certainly be used in a disparaging way. Trying to figure out whether or not Fox News means it as disparaging seems like an act of futility to me. If we are trying to convince anyone that Fox News is not an actual news network and deserves no credibility, that has already been decided by rational people. No one takes Fox News seriously anymore. They are like Rush Limbaugh or Jerry Springer or Morton Downey, Jr. They appeal to the lowest common denominator of entertainment that pretty much all of us have a piece of somewhere in us. But they have no credibility among the sane.
However, arguing over the term anchor babies seems like a waste of energy to me, personally. I happen to have grown up in a neighborhood where there were several families who went home each year to Mexico. The parents were not citizens did not speak English particularly well. The children (my friends) were born here and spoke excellent English. They, generally, spent a month in the summer and a month in December back home in Mexico. They came here for work. I am sure they were probably not all here legally. But, they certainly did not have children here to become citizens. They had children here because this is where they happened to be living when the children were born. I think this a much more common scenario than having a baby you do not want simply to become a citizen.
I also do not believe that parents become citizens just because they have children here. In fact, I know of one example personally where the child grew up as a citizen, but his parents did have to go back to Mexico eventually because they were not citizens. I think this is a fairly common practice.
This issue to me is, how do we find a workable solution. What we are doing now by keeping these people in the shadows is untenable. It enables them to be taken advantage of and it allows employers to hide the fact that they are not paying a living wage, thus lowering the wages for everyone. I also do not believe forcing them into a guest worker program will work. If you look at other countries that actually have a real problem with immigrants hating them, we are not one of them. The countries who force their immigrant labor into guest worker programs keeps them segregated and allows their anti-native sentiment to fester and grow.
Our immigrants love America. There is a reason that al-Qaeda has to ship in foreigners to attack us from the inside. Our actual immigrants here may disagree with many of our practices or political decisions, but they are allowed to become a part of the process. And no matter how angry you get in your own household, you don't burn down the house when you're allowed to live in it. One of the things America has always done better than the rest of the world is accept immigrants into the system.
Believe it or not, we need the immigrants as much as they need us. If all of our illegal immigrant labor were to leave tomorrow, our economy would collapse. Even with unemployment as high as it is, there are many areas in this country that do not have enough labor. It may seem hard to believe, but it is true. There are plenty of places that if all the illegal immigrants went home tomorrow, they would have to shut down all their local industry. I just happen to live near one of these areas. So, we need them and they want to be here.
We should legalize (or decriminalize if you prefer) them and give them the choice. Not all of them want to become citizens. Many of them work here during the months when work is here and go home when it is not. Many more would go back when seasonal work was slow, if they did not have to sneak back. If they want to become guest workers, give them the option. If they want to become citizens give them some kind of remedy to begin the process of citizenship. We are not allowing enough of them to become citizens at the current rate that we need to fill the jobs. Let's stop pretending as if we do not need them and allow them to come out of the shadows. Then we can regulate their employment and their employers. And, they will not be so easily taken advantage of.
...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.[4]
The term has been applied with prejudice against Mexican Americans and other Latinos in general, even if their parents are U.S. citizens. For example, Ruben Navarrette Jr., a Mexican American columnist and editorial board member of The San Diego Union-Tribune and nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group, reported being called an "anchor baby" in a 2007 column of his, titled Hate in the Immigration Debate":[7]
And, as I travel the country speaking to Hispanic groups, one thing I hear is that “anti-immigrant” rapidly morphed into “anti-Hispanic” and specifically “anti-Mexican.” I get evidence of that every day in my e-mail. Just last week, after I defended the prosecution of two Border Patrol agents, a reader called me a “dirty Latino” who needs to get “back to Mexico.” Another writer called me an “anchor baby” – the term used by nativists to describe the children of illegal immigrants born in the United States. Never mind that I was born in the United States and my parents were born in the United States. What I see here is racism.
Hispanic activist group the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) reports usage of the term towards pregnant Latinas (in reference to the child, as captured on video:)[8][9]
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.
Thank you Sue, you have just shot this thread through the heart, for you just linked to the accurate definition of anchor babies. How people feel about a definition is a function of pc liberalism gone amok. You love to change words to soften their meaning, do it all the time. This is just another example of that.
"If you refer to anyone as a 'retard', it means you want my Down syndrome child killed by the death panel, you betcha also!"
The user of a word DOES not get to decide if that word is offensive. It is the person the word is directed at who gets to decide whether or not it is offensive.
For example,
Sen. Reid's usage of the term "negro dialect" was obviously not considered offensive by him, or he wouldn't have used it. However, the recipients of that term did find it offensive.
Clear Skies Initiative. No Child Left Behind. Etc. Etc.
You should look up Frank Luntz.
On the other hand, there's not a smidgen of evidence that I did it here or that I've done it elsewhere.
So no, it's not a "I know you are but what am I" routine at all.
It was simply a baseless personal attack by RightON that I caught and exposed, and you're his b*tch on this thread.
The history of our country is littered with similar bills, many of which pass because of hysteria and fear but ultimately get struck down, especially after the Equal Protection Act.
I describe the Alien Land Laws that impacted my parents and Grandparents and it took the Supreme Court to overtun those ridiculous acts... and for those who history impaired, it was a law that prevented non-citizens from owning land in California (similar laws existed in Washington)
Wow, brilliant observation. What, should the U.S. simply open its borders without any immigration laws or regulations. There's a slew of reasons, entirely unrelated to race or xenophobia, to impose and enforce laws restricting unfettered immigation. Your generalization is utterly asinine.
How much immigration are you comfortable with?
100,000/yr
700,000/yr
1 million/yr
my guess is zero
Name one immigration law similar to the one being offered now that isn't like the Alien Land Law, which is targeting a particular race.
After the Homestead Act, there was a lot of anti-immigration sentiment then too... it's the fear of losing what they have or think they can have to those who are foreigners...
If what you think I'm saying is a generalization, it only is because it has happened over and over again throughout our history. Today's laws are the same that were introduced in the 20s and the 1860s, and so forth and so on.
That's what it's about.
But changing the constitution... invoking this law, doesn't address any of it. It fixes nothing.
and btw... Tom Tancredo has been denouncing immigration... not just illegal immigration, but all immigration. He is trying to make it a platform for the Tea Party movement.
Why each generation think that the current generation of immigrants is the cause of all our nations problems baffles me.
It's like how every generation thinks the younger generation is the end of modern civilization.
When will be people realize that except for native-Americans, every person in this country is the son or daughter of an immigrant, legally entered or not.
Every first generation had to overcome racism and prejudice. Nothing changes, so I suppose it's no surprise that it's happening today, just as it did 200 years ago.
Most nationalities had to band together and form anti-defamation leagues to stop the overt racism that was occurring.
Being Japanese-American with family from California, laws in this state were anti-Japanese. The Alien Land Laws didn't name Japanese, but they were the target because local farmers feared Japanese-Americans from buying too much land. When they started putting the land in their natural born children's names, they amended the law to close that loophole.
Oyama v California finally overturned these laws after 30 years of illegal practices.
So, RightON and the conservatives with their anti-immigrant legislation... there is a long history of outrageous acts performed by those with anti-immigrant feelings... what will your grandchildren say about your beliefs. Because Oyama v California was only 60 years ago... it impacted my parents and mainly my grandparents.
And you can say that it's not racist, but just because you say it doesn't make it right.
Those who supported the Alien Land Laws swore they weren't racists... but they were.
I won't speak for RO...but I'm not at all opposed to legal immigration. And the immigration system is a bureaucratic mess that needs fixed.
I support guest worker programs. When foreign labor is needed...bring it on. We should reform the program so that they can register, report, come here and perform the work. When or if the work is done...have a safe trip home and stand ready to come back when necessary.
Count me in the group that thinks the term is pejorative and accurate...I expressly disapprove of the concept of granting citizenship to babies of illegal aliens.
Call them mud hook babies, kedge babies or mooring babies...it matters little to me. If their parents committed the illegal act of flouting our immigration laws...it's not a good reason to reward their offspring with citizenships.
If the law were to be passed, I'm sure there would be a constitutional challenge...that will prove/disprove the necessity of a constitutional amendment.
How do you parse that?
While the term "anchor baby" my not be in-and-of-itself a derogatory or racist term, It seems to have been attached to a lot of news stories involving immigrants/immigration.
As noted that FOX Nation recently used the term in question, it should also be noted that Fox News Channel has repeatedly shown us the viewer, what these immigrants look like when it comes to immigration.
Observe
So why on earth would anyone come to the conclusion that the term anchor baby isn't a loaded term that is seen as derogatory or racist. The term can be derogatory or racist when most of the time the viewers are shown what an immigrant looks like.
Lets check in on MSNBC to see who they think is an immigrant when it comes to immigration:
Lets review:
The media repeatedly shows people (Mexicans), climbing fences and running through brush when entering the United States of America, whenever the discussion of immigration is at hand. Coincidentally the media (in this case Fox Nation) uses the term "anchor baby" to illustrate how immigrants are having babies to stay in the United States. If you cannot see how this term is being used, because everyone cries how it's about context, then you are missing the whole point of the argument and you are missing the point that Media Matters (and others as noted)is trying to make.
http://chrisgworld.blogspot.com/2010/02/attention-media-matters-nbc-show-used.html
Now,since right-wingers like many of the folks that post here have no problem with phrases like "anchor babies" because it's "accurate", they should have no problem being referred to as Teabaggers, right? I mean, it's accurate, right? Memebers of the "Tea Bag Movement" are teabaggers.
Case Closed.
Reinhard
Support the War! Raise Taxes!