Working for logical immigation reform based on a stable population, a recognition of the finite nature of our natural resources and the adverse impact of continued growth on our quality of life, standard of living, national interest, character, language, sovereignty and the rule of law. Pushing back and countering the disloyal elements in American society and the anti-American rhetoric of the leftwing illegal alien lobbies. In a debate, when your opponents turn to name calling, it's a good sign you've already won.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

What is an Anchor Baby?

In many respects an anchor baby is no different from any other squalling, red-faced baby, capable of burps coming from his toes or babbling happily in his mother’s arms. That’s about where the similarity ends.

According to the principle of jus soli, embodied in the 14th amendment, a person's nationality at birth is determined by the place of birth. Thus, any child born in the United States is an American. The 14th amendment has been abused by tourists, guest workers and those who enter the U.S. illegally for the sole purpose of delivering an instant citizen. As a result, many believe that if the framers of the 14th amendment had been able to anticipate immigration’s unarmed invasion and its deadly consequences, the amendment would have been much more restrictive. Some have suggested that the citizenship of the child should be the same as the citizenship of the mother, regardless of the place of birth. This is the principle of jus sanguinis, that a person's nationality at birth is the same as that of his natural parents.

The term anchor baby is an accurate descriptor for any baby who subsequently serves as a basis for awarding preferential immigration status to the baby’s parents and other close relatives, thus creating an immigration tail of significant magnitude. This term applies to any child regardless of the citizenship of the parents. If such a child enables parents and other relatives to achieve legal status or preferential immigration standing, then indeed the child has played the anchor baby role to the hilt. Anchor in this context is anything or person who acts to hold himself fast, as to a place; anything that makes stable or secure or anything that is depended on for support or security. There is nothing pejorative about the application of this term to babies who play this role. It is certainly not de-humanizing or de-Americanizing.

There have been many stories reported lamenting the separation of parents from children when illegal aliens are apprehended, detained and/or deported but the children are jus soli citizens. The illegals blame the government for enforcing the law when it is they themselves who have created the family separation problem by their violation of the border without proper authorization and then delivering a baby in the U.S..


mirrorism said...

I'm not going to touch the seperation issue, but I still believe the anchor baby term is de-humanizing and de-Americanizing.

De-humanizing because it objectifies human beings. Simple.

It de-Americanizes them because it implies that they are unworthy of their American title. They are half-American, Mexican-American, not just a American. With that in mind, is there any wonder why some are partial (but never completely favorable) to the red, white, and green.

And let us not forget what you and others would like to do with these "anchor babies," ie. you literally want a way to de-Americanize them.

ultima said...

Okay, I appreciate your more moderate tone. We can discuss this issue. I would like to begin by asking what term you would use if you feel "anchor" de-humanizes. [I note that this is a very valued title in the TV news industry so it can't be entirely de-humanizing.]

I believe I stated that by the 14th amendment criterion they are all of American nationality. So it is they who should think about dropping the trappings of the nationality of their parents. The child is an American pure and simple.

We can quarrel about whether jus soli or jus sanguinis is the appropriate policy for the U.S. at this point in its history and if the latter, how we can best achieve that goal. Many countries in Europe are finding that jus soli doesn't fit. Even liberal Great Britain has revised its thinking about this and for good reasons. As they now well know, all immigrants from the Commonwealth do not have the national interests of Great Britain at heart.

The disagreement over the 14th amendment does not pertain to those who have already been born here. That would mean ex post facto laws which have been anathema since 1775 and before, so none of them should feel anything but unqualified loyalty to America before any loyalty to foreigners. Apparently they don't understand that, or are succumbing to the rhetoric of those who were not born here.

Actually no. We don't want to de-Americanize them. It can't be done. That doesn't mean we would prefer to continue with the staus quo and allow this travesty to continue.

I'm not sure how much support there is for a revision of the 14th but I do sincerely believe that would be in the national interest. That would, of course, raise some interesting questions that we could discuss in another post.

mirrorism said...

I've always liked the term Americans. As Americans they are born with certain rights, one includes being able to legalize their parents.

Maybe one day they will be unable to do that, instead of being unable to be born American. Not exactly something I would agree with, but some may see that as an acceptable compromise.

I'm not sure how to explain why certain children of illegal immigrants identify with the Mexican flag. (Just the flag, because they certainly do not know anything about how society truly functions in Mexico, nor do they know anything about Mexico's history that doesn't involve war with the United States.) I think it is because of who they are; their parents, their reflection, their food, their language, and their religion.

You cannot completely separate yourself from that; no matter the outside forces. So, when some of those outside forces start to attack you through your parents, appearance, food, language, and religion you will naturally feel the need to defend yourself and align yourself with something that symbolizes who you are, the Mexican flag.

However, that does not mean that they are for Mexico (how can they be if they know nothing about Mexico?) and against the United States. That is why in subsequent demonstrations after they were criticized, wrongly, for waving Mexican flags, they willingly waived their Mexican flags and proudly waved their American flags.

In summary, a Mexican flag has been used as a symbol, not as a claim of allegiance, the demonstrations that they were used in are proof enough that they understand American history, what the liberties and rights of an American are, and that they accept that they are American. Had they been brainwashed by Mexicans, as you are suggesting, they either would have never protested at all or protested after mass deportations had already taken place.