This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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 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)
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)
Are the tags for neutrality and factual accuracy in the current version still needed? Terjen ( talk) 06:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
"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. --NDH 75.35.242.5 ( talk) 19:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have removed two unsourced assertions.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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.html Kevin M Keane ( talk) 08:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
If a child born in the US can make immigration easier for its family, it is not fair to state that the term is based on a false assumption. - Schrandit ( talk) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
I was shocked to come here and find that the term has a "derogatory" meaning. I had never heard that in the many times I'd been exposed to the term, and reading this entire discussion page, I now am concerned that some unconscious POV may be at work, which I'll touch upon later.
Route to citizenship?
But I must also say that I was rather surprised to read that the term refers to the fact that anchor babies are birthed explicitly for the purpose of gaining US citizenship for the parents. And I agree with those who point out that is such a long-term plan as to yield next to no benefits at all. Having a baby this year so that you can become a US citizen in 20 years not only sounds like a stretch, it also runs in the face of my personal experience. I have worked alongside and even gone to school alongside of illegal aliens for decades. The vast majority of them had zero interest in becoming US citizens. Yes, some of them want to live here for the rest of their lives, many others just want to make a lot of money and then return home to Mexico where they can live like kings on their US earnings, but either way, almost none of them desire citizenship. That's my experience, and it's been the same in the three states I've lived in, which include two of the states with the highest level of Hispanic immigrants.
Are parents being deported?
Yet, despite this, I've found the term "anchor baby" to be a useful term. Now according to
single issue
User:Kevin M Keane,
parents of anchor babies are routinely deported. If this is true, then the term anchor baby as I have always understood it--a baby whose existence keeps the parents from being deported--would be useless. But Kevin's source shows a different picture, if we read it and compare it to the actual situation. His source indicates that 88,000 illegal aliens who were parents were deported over a ten-year period. If this number were meaningful (which it is not, as I shall explain momentarily), then it would still pale in comparison to the over 500,000 illegals who enter the United States every year (admitedly, not all of them are parents or even pregnant, but this is annualy, not a ten-year period, as in Kevin's source),
[1] in other words, around 1% are being deported. But actually, that 88,000 number is less than it appears, because only half of them still had children living at home--the 88,000 number includes those with grown children. Furthermore, Kevin's statement that "such parents are routinely deported" is a false, because, as his own source shows, these parents who are deported are deported only when they commit some crime other than illegal entry.
A pejorative?
My whole point is, that for me, the term anchor baby is a useful shorthand to describe a child whose presence secures that parents' right to stay in the US. Is it always used with 100% accuracy? I'm sure it's not, but neither are most such terms that we find useful. It is a part of the debate in the US, for better or worse, about immigration. And I've certainly never used it as a derogatory term, and had not ever heard anyone using it as a term to demean the anchor babies themselves. Sure, many who use the term are virulently opposed to illegal immigration. But I've never seen any evidence of animus towards the babies, only towards their parents' illegal acts. Nonetheless, the sources we have here do support this idea that it's a pejorative term? Why?
One clue might be this edit by User:Cuchullain, who, unlike Kevin above, is clearly a seasoned and well-respected editor. But I wonder if he even realizes the logical net he's drawn by his comments. Look at this statement:
it's not fair to say that [the term anchor baby] 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"
To exclude these prominent (if loony) individuals as examples of the term being used in a non-derogatory manner would be bad enough, but this fine editor also is saying that no one who wants to see a reduction in immigration can be used as a source because they are inherently biased! Well. If we must exclude the opinions of those on one side of the argument, then all we are left with is the other side. And if the other side paints the usage of this term as "derogatory", then the side who is actually using the term with any regularity can no longer contribute to defining what the term means. All that is left are the opinions of those who presume that the "immigration reductionists" are all imbued with racist motivations. No wonder the article reads as it does, because one side in the debate has been declared NPOV and the other is POV.
Maybe we could shorten some of our lengthier articles if we adopt such an approach generally. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 21:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently there is a bit of a tussle going on as to whether the term is used by "immigration reductionists" in general, or merely by "illegal immigration reductionists". Bill is asserting that it is used by the former, larger group, [5] User:Schrandit [6] and an anon [7] make the point that only the latter group uses the term. I'm not sure which is most accurate, but I am sure that Cuchullain would agree that opponents of illegal immigration definitely use the term, since, logically, they are a subset of the larger group. Accordingly, my default setting would be to agree with Schrandit et al. But rather than throw gas on the fire, I'll not do an edit to that effect just yet.
It would be unfair, if not impossible, to ask Bill to come up with examples of people who favor reducing immigration in general who do not also favor reducing illegal immigration, as such persons would probably not be found outside of a Mental Hospital for the Hopelessly Self-Contradicting, but if Bill could at least please provide some examples of persons who use the term explicitly in reference to the babies of legal immigrants, it would be helpful. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 03:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I see some disingenuousness here.
Ken Arromdee ( talk) 16:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm moving the December 2010 discussion of whether or not to say "immigration reductionist" to a new section at the end of this talk page, to make it easier for people to see this new material. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 06:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have to object to this edit, and I could not fit my objections into the edit summary. This edit comes with a summary claiming that this information is "not relevant" here. Not only is this relevant, to cut it out like this leaves in place an extremely misleading version, as it carries the implication that any parent here illegally is as likely as any other to be deported. But as the source makes clear, the only ones being deported are those who have committed crimes while in the US. In single issue User:Kevin M Keane's version, the reader is led to believe that the government seeks out parents to deport, in the version I am about to restore it makes clear the truth, which is that parents here illegally who stay out of trouble are not at significant risk of deportation. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 11:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt this is okay:
"For example, Ruben Navarrette Jr., a Mexican American pro-illegal alien turdwad, liar, and high-ranking member of the Por La Raza Todo, Fuera La Raza Nada movement, lied about being called an "anchor baby" in a 2007 column of his, titled Hate in the Immigration Debate":[8]"
Really? Seriously? I have never heard this term, and assumed it meant "Navy Brat" or something. This has to be one of the worst Wiki articles I've ever seen. Defining a term (even if offensive - it's always good to be able to decipher the meaning behind hurled verbal abuse so you can wittily retort) is useful, but this article is full of racist inflammatory hateful speech, and I'm so new to this end of Wikipedia that I'm not sure about flagging etiquette around here and don't know where to begin. Looking it up now... Metalfamily ( talk) 15:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The term "immigration reductionist" is unclear since it does not cover those who oppose only illegal immigration. This term should not be used in this article. Why not just say, used by those who oppose illegal immigration? 71.111.127.39 ( talk) 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
there are many who oppose illegal immigration, but not legal immigration. The people in the latter group don't often use the term anchor baby. 71.111.127.39 ( talk) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with what you say above.
ok, so do we take a poll here? basically, I'm asking about how to get consensus. you seem to be the only other party in the discussion here. 71.111.127.39 ( talk) 06:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Over at Birthright generation there's an article which appears to discuss some of the same issues as this one, but sets out to provide a different POV. I'm not familiar with this subject but "POV fork" springs to mind. Would a merge/redirect be appropriate? bobrayner ( talk) 15:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The following material (see here) does not, IMO, belong in this article. The cited statistics are certainly germane to the topics of illegal immigration to the United States and/or birth tourism, but as best I can tell, none of these sources mention the term "anchor baby" — and since this article is specifically about this particular expression, not about illegal immigration or birthright citizenship in general, this material ought to go somewhere else, not here. At least, that's how I see it. Comments from others? Richwales ( talk · contribs) 20:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict)The random statistics that have been added repeatedly by Richmondian are clearly inappropriate for this article. This article is about a term, it isn't the general place for discussion about illegal immigration in the United States. They need to stay out.-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Seems disingenous to me. The article is full of citations that don't mention anchor babies but you only want to remove the statistics section? Richmondian ( talk) 23:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Chuchullain, that's really not helping anything. Having #s really benefits the article, even if they don't say "anchor baby" in the title or whatever. The "babies" in question are the children of illegal immigrants, some basics about them really sheds light on the topic. It just seems disingenuous to target this one area for removal but leave the others that have been there much longer. Maybe its just me but feels like you're trying to preclude others from contributing by deleting paragraphs wholesale and putting warnings on my talk page etc. If the citations had "anchor baby" in the title/body I'd be surprised if you didn't still remove them under some other guise. Richmondian ( talk) 22:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Cuchullian the term doesn't need to be mentioned in the article. That is not wiki policy and you don't seem to mind the other references. "anchor babies" are children of illegal immigrants; that's the topic of the article. The only reason the term exists is because there is a perception that there are many of these kids and the parents get some sort of legal/financial benefit they wouldn't have without their children. But, here's an article that does use the term:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/ ...That's become a popular talking point for critics of illegal immigration, who have dubbed the children "anchor babies." The implication often is that the baby U.S. citizens act as an anchor that that helps parents and other relatives obtain citizenship and other benefits.....
...3.8 million undocumented immigrants have at least one child who is a citizen.....
...As many of 70 percent of the roughly 16,000 women giving birth annually at the hospital were immigrants who were in the U.S. illegally....
....having a citizen child can produce some short-term benefits, said Marc Rosenblum, a senior policy analyst for the Migration Policy Institute. Pregnant women and nursing mothers could be eligible for certain benefits under the Women-Infants-Children (WIC) program, which provides food and nutrition vouchers, and their children could enroll in Medicaid, although the undocumented parents could not.....
Richmondian (
talk)
17:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no, its not required that a source be about the precise to topic to be included in an article as far as I know. Feel free to point out that policy....and Cuchu, you've been reverting here since at least August. You haven't find time to edit the other sources yet? Stretches the mind. Richmondian ( talk) 21:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, as promised, I'm going to try going through this article now, looking for things that don't seem to belong.
If there are other things here which people believe are irrelevant to the article, I'd welcome additional comments. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 04:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
not a reliable source
Is a primary source -- not the type wiki accepts
Website is invalid
no mention of anchor babies
All I have time for now.
Richmondian ( talk) 15:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, so Malkin citation doesn't mention Anchor Baby anywhere and you guys are alright with that, so I take it we're OK having citations that don't mention the term Anchor Baby? Richmondian ( talk) 23:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Double-tongued dictionary is definitely not a good source. Its a joke of a website. Richmondian ( talk) 23:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The most recent series of edits, made under the guise of "cleanup", contained several distortions of the references and removed material cited to reliable secondary sources along with poorly cited material. I've reverted it so that we can work out the problems and move forward with the article. Cúchullain t/ c 23:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Anchor babies CAN facilitate getting numerous benefits. Food stamps, citizenship, etc. Those are well documented. And, few parents of anchor babies are ever deported. As far as the recent edits, I think they're quire beneficial. POV terms such as 'derogatory' and questionable anecdotes were removed. Also links to primary sources were removed. And Cuchu, the reverting is getting a little...tired. How about making some improvements instead of constantly chattering about how you just-dont-have-time. Richmondian ( talk) 00:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Spare me the personal attacks Cuchu. "limited" and "numerous" are two ways of saying -- more than 0 and less than infinite. anchor babies -can- sponsor relatives and -do- get benefits (food stamps, etc), no question about that. their parents are rarely deported unless they've committed an additional crime. estimates are that they cost about $6 billion a year.
Numbers USA reports that “In some cases, immigration judges make exceptions for the parents on the basis of their U.S.-born children and grant the parents legal status. In many cases, though, immigration officials choose not to initiate removal proceedings against illegal aliens with U.S.-born children, so they simply remain here illegally.”. Time to revive the statistics section
Richmondian ( talk) 02:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
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 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)
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)
Are the tags for neutrality and factual accuracy in the current version still needed? Terjen ( talk) 06:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
"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. --NDH 75.35.242.5 ( talk) 19:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
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)
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)
I have removed two unsourced assertions.
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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.html Kevin M Keane ( talk) 08:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
If a child born in the US can make immigration easier for its family, it is not fair to state that the term is based on a false assumption. - Schrandit ( talk) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
I was shocked to come here and find that the term has a "derogatory" meaning. I had never heard that in the many times I'd been exposed to the term, and reading this entire discussion page, I now am concerned that some unconscious POV may be at work, which I'll touch upon later.
Route to citizenship?
But I must also say that I was rather surprised to read that the term refers to the fact that anchor babies are birthed explicitly for the purpose of gaining US citizenship for the parents. And I agree with those who point out that is such a long-term plan as to yield next to no benefits at all. Having a baby this year so that you can become a US citizen in 20 years not only sounds like a stretch, it also runs in the face of my personal experience. I have worked alongside and even gone to school alongside of illegal aliens for decades. The vast majority of them had zero interest in becoming US citizens. Yes, some of them want to live here for the rest of their lives, many others just want to make a lot of money and then return home to Mexico where they can live like kings on their US earnings, but either way, almost none of them desire citizenship. That's my experience, and it's been the same in the three states I've lived in, which include two of the states with the highest level of Hispanic immigrants.
Are parents being deported?
Yet, despite this, I've found the term "anchor baby" to be a useful term. Now according to
single issue
User:Kevin M Keane,
parents of anchor babies are routinely deported. If this is true, then the term anchor baby as I have always understood it--a baby whose existence keeps the parents from being deported--would be useless. But Kevin's source shows a different picture, if we read it and compare it to the actual situation. His source indicates that 88,000 illegal aliens who were parents were deported over a ten-year period. If this number were meaningful (which it is not, as I shall explain momentarily), then it would still pale in comparison to the over 500,000 illegals who enter the United States every year (admitedly, not all of them are parents or even pregnant, but this is annualy, not a ten-year period, as in Kevin's source),
[1] in other words, around 1% are being deported. But actually, that 88,000 number is less than it appears, because only half of them still had children living at home--the 88,000 number includes those with grown children. Furthermore, Kevin's statement that "such parents are routinely deported" is a false, because, as his own source shows, these parents who are deported are deported only when they commit some crime other than illegal entry.
A pejorative?
My whole point is, that for me, the term anchor baby is a useful shorthand to describe a child whose presence secures that parents' right to stay in the US. Is it always used with 100% accuracy? I'm sure it's not, but neither are most such terms that we find useful. It is a part of the debate in the US, for better or worse, about immigration. And I've certainly never used it as a derogatory term, and had not ever heard anyone using it as a term to demean the anchor babies themselves. Sure, many who use the term are virulently opposed to illegal immigration. But I've never seen any evidence of animus towards the babies, only towards their parents' illegal acts. Nonetheless, the sources we have here do support this idea that it's a pejorative term? Why?
One clue might be this edit by User:Cuchullain, who, unlike Kevin above, is clearly a seasoned and well-respected editor. But I wonder if he even realizes the logical net he's drawn by his comments. Look at this statement:
it's not fair to say that [the term anchor baby] 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"
To exclude these prominent (if loony) individuals as examples of the term being used in a non-derogatory manner would be bad enough, but this fine editor also is saying that no one who wants to see a reduction in immigration can be used as a source because they are inherently biased! Well. If we must exclude the opinions of those on one side of the argument, then all we are left with is the other side. And if the other side paints the usage of this term as "derogatory", then the side who is actually using the term with any regularity can no longer contribute to defining what the term means. All that is left are the opinions of those who presume that the "immigration reductionists" are all imbued with racist motivations. No wonder the article reads as it does, because one side in the debate has been declared NPOV and the other is POV.
Maybe we could shorten some of our lengthier articles if we adopt such an approach generally. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 21:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Currently there is a bit of a tussle going on as to whether the term is used by "immigration reductionists" in general, or merely by "illegal immigration reductionists". Bill is asserting that it is used by the former, larger group, [5] User:Schrandit [6] and an anon [7] make the point that only the latter group uses the term. I'm not sure which is most accurate, but I am sure that Cuchullain would agree that opponents of illegal immigration definitely use the term, since, logically, they are a subset of the larger group. Accordingly, my default setting would be to agree with Schrandit et al. But rather than throw gas on the fire, I'll not do an edit to that effect just yet.
It would be unfair, if not impossible, to ask Bill to come up with examples of people who favor reducing immigration in general who do not also favor reducing illegal immigration, as such persons would probably not be found outside of a Mental Hospital for the Hopelessly Self-Contradicting, but if Bill could at least please provide some examples of persons who use the term explicitly in reference to the babies of legal immigrants, it would be helpful. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 03:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I see some disingenuousness here.
Ken Arromdee ( talk) 16:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm moving the December 2010 discussion of whether or not to say "immigration reductionist" to a new section at the end of this talk page, to make it easier for people to see this new material. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 06:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I have to object to this edit, and I could not fit my objections into the edit summary. This edit comes with a summary claiming that this information is "not relevant" here. Not only is this relevant, to cut it out like this leaves in place an extremely misleading version, as it carries the implication that any parent here illegally is as likely as any other to be deported. But as the source makes clear, the only ones being deported are those who have committed crimes while in the US. In single issue User:Kevin M Keane's version, the reader is led to believe that the government seeks out parents to deport, in the version I am about to restore it makes clear the truth, which is that parents here illegally who stay out of trouble are not at significant risk of deportation. HuskyHuskie ( talk) 11:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I doubt this is okay:
"For example, Ruben Navarrette Jr., a Mexican American pro-illegal alien turdwad, liar, and high-ranking member of the Por La Raza Todo, Fuera La Raza Nada movement, lied about being called an "anchor baby" in a 2007 column of his, titled Hate in the Immigration Debate":[8]"
Really? Seriously? I have never heard this term, and assumed it meant "Navy Brat" or something. This has to be one of the worst Wiki articles I've ever seen. Defining a term (even if offensive - it's always good to be able to decipher the meaning behind hurled verbal abuse so you can wittily retort) is useful, but this article is full of racist inflammatory hateful speech, and I'm so new to this end of Wikipedia that I'm not sure about flagging etiquette around here and don't know where to begin. Looking it up now... Metalfamily ( talk) 15:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
The term "immigration reductionist" is unclear since it does not cover those who oppose only illegal immigration. This term should not be used in this article. Why not just say, used by those who oppose illegal immigration? 71.111.127.39 ( talk) 20:02, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
there are many who oppose illegal immigration, but not legal immigration. The people in the latter group don't often use the term anchor baby. 71.111.127.39 ( talk) 21:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with what you say above.
ok, so do we take a poll here? basically, I'm asking about how to get consensus. you seem to be the only other party in the discussion here. 71.111.127.39 ( talk) 06:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Over at Birthright generation there's an article which appears to discuss some of the same issues as this one, but sets out to provide a different POV. I'm not familiar with this subject but "POV fork" springs to mind. Would a merge/redirect be appropriate? bobrayner ( talk) 15:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The following material (see here) does not, IMO, belong in this article. The cited statistics are certainly germane to the topics of illegal immigration to the United States and/or birth tourism, but as best I can tell, none of these sources mention the term "anchor baby" — and since this article is specifically about this particular expression, not about illegal immigration or birthright citizenship in general, this material ought to go somewhere else, not here. At least, that's how I see it. Comments from others? Richwales ( talk · contribs) 20:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
( edit conflict)The random statistics that have been added repeatedly by Richmondian are clearly inappropriate for this article. This article is about a term, it isn't the general place for discussion about illegal immigration in the United States. They need to stay out.-- Cúchullain t/ c 20:26, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Seems disingenous to me. The article is full of citations that don't mention anchor babies but you only want to remove the statistics section? Richmondian ( talk) 23:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Chuchullain, that's really not helping anything. Having #s really benefits the article, even if they don't say "anchor baby" in the title or whatever. The "babies" in question are the children of illegal immigrants, some basics about them really sheds light on the topic. It just seems disingenuous to target this one area for removal but leave the others that have been there much longer. Maybe its just me but feels like you're trying to preclude others from contributing by deleting paragraphs wholesale and putting warnings on my talk page etc. If the citations had "anchor baby" in the title/body I'd be surprised if you didn't still remove them under some other guise. Richmondian ( talk) 22:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Cuchullian the term doesn't need to be mentioned in the article. That is not wiki policy and you don't seem to mind the other references. "anchor babies" are children of illegal immigrants; that's the topic of the article. The only reason the term exists is because there is a perception that there are many of these kids and the parents get some sort of legal/financial benefit they wouldn't have without their children. But, here's an article that does use the term:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/ ...That's become a popular talking point for critics of illegal immigration, who have dubbed the children "anchor babies." The implication often is that the baby U.S. citizens act as an anchor that that helps parents and other relatives obtain citizenship and other benefits.....
...3.8 million undocumented immigrants have at least one child who is a citizen.....
...As many of 70 percent of the roughly 16,000 women giving birth annually at the hospital were immigrants who were in the U.S. illegally....
....having a citizen child can produce some short-term benefits, said Marc Rosenblum, a senior policy analyst for the Migration Policy Institute. Pregnant women and nursing mothers could be eligible for certain benefits under the Women-Infants-Children (WIC) program, which provides food and nutrition vouchers, and their children could enroll in Medicaid, although the undocumented parents could not.....
Richmondian (
talk)
17:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no, its not required that a source be about the precise to topic to be included in an article as far as I know. Feel free to point out that policy....and Cuchu, you've been reverting here since at least August. You haven't find time to edit the other sources yet? Stretches the mind. Richmondian ( talk) 21:38, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, as promised, I'm going to try going through this article now, looking for things that don't seem to belong.
If there are other things here which people believe are irrelevant to the article, I'd welcome additional comments. Richwales ( talk · contribs) 04:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
not a reliable source
Is a primary source -- not the type wiki accepts
Website is invalid
no mention of anchor babies
All I have time for now.
Richmondian ( talk) 15:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
OK, so Malkin citation doesn't mention Anchor Baby anywhere and you guys are alright with that, so I take it we're OK having citations that don't mention the term Anchor Baby? Richmondian ( talk) 23:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Double-tongued dictionary is definitely not a good source. Its a joke of a website. Richmondian ( talk) 23:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The most recent series of edits, made under the guise of "cleanup", contained several distortions of the references and removed material cited to reliable secondary sources along with poorly cited material. I've reverted it so that we can work out the problems and move forward with the article. Cúchullain t/ c 23:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Anchor babies CAN facilitate getting numerous benefits. Food stamps, citizenship, etc. Those are well documented. And, few parents of anchor babies are ever deported. As far as the recent edits, I think they're quire beneficial. POV terms such as 'derogatory' and questionable anecdotes were removed. Also links to primary sources were removed. And Cuchu, the reverting is getting a little...tired. How about making some improvements instead of constantly chattering about how you just-dont-have-time. Richmondian ( talk) 00:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Spare me the personal attacks Cuchu. "limited" and "numerous" are two ways of saying -- more than 0 and less than infinite. anchor babies -can- sponsor relatives and -do- get benefits (food stamps, etc), no question about that. their parents are rarely deported unless they've committed an additional crime. estimates are that they cost about $6 billion a year.
Numbers USA reports that “In some cases, immigration judges make exceptions for the parents on the basis of their U.S.-born children and grant the parents legal status. In many cases, though, immigration officials choose not to initiate removal proceedings against illegal aliens with U.S.-born children, so they simply remain here illegally.”. Time to revive the statistics section
Richmondian ( talk) 02:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)