Ask Google, what is an anchor baby?

It is interesting that Google decided (somehow?) that "anchor baby" is an offensive term.

.....................................................................................................................

Siri Reads the more elaborate presentation of the term at Wikipedia

source: Anchor Baby

Anchor baby is a pejorative term for a child born in the United States to a foreign national mother who was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.[1] There is a popular misconception that the child's U.S. citizenship status (acquired by jus soli) legally helps the child's parents and siblings to quickly reclassify their visa status (or lack thereof) and to place them on a fast pathway to acquire lawful permanent residence and eventually United States citizenship.[2][3] This is a myth.[4] Current U.S. federal law prevents anyone under the age of 21 from being able to petition for their non-citizen parent to be lawfully admitted into the United States for permanent residence. So at best, the child's family would need to wait for 21 years before being able to use their child's US citizenship to modify their immigration status.[5]

The term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen and can later act as a sponsor for other family members.[6][7] The term is also often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States to refer to children of illegal immigrants, but may be used for the child of any immigrant.[8] A similar term, "passport baby", has been used in Canada for children born through so-called "maternity" or "birth tourism".[9][10]

Alexa calls it a "pejorative" term.

So there is a consensus here.

Comments

Mark de LA says

Yeah, the US Constitution says Congress decides the matter of citizenship. See 18706.

Seth says

(;-)) 2015-08-21 07:42:03 18711

Yeah, the US Constitution says Congress decides the matter of citizenship. See 18706.

Trump might have a point here, i don't know, and my opining on it would be worthless.

Thing is, one way or the other according to some interpertation of the letter of the law, we still need to deal with what is best for the children and their families ... notwithstanding that they are otherness babies and not one that according to our American egoo we must needs care for.

Mark de LA says

seth 2015-08-21 12:37:14 18711

(;-)) 2015-08-21 07:42:03 18711

Yeah, the US Constitution says Congress decides the matter of citizenship. See 18706.

Yep, return them & their parents - if not legal citizens - back to their country of origin & culture while first sealing or borders so that order at the border is achieved. We will rapidly be unable to care for our own if this continues much longer. Why do other countries not take care of their own? The United States of America still is not respected & appreciated for all the generosity it has bestowed on other parts of the World. Jealosy & envy of others is hated. North Korea is a wonderful example. While the culture is essentially the same in the North & the South - the South prospers & has a high degree of freedom & the North is a disaster. It is their government in the North which is at fault.
It is not Trump but the US Constitution & immigration law which gives Congress the power to handle immigration. It is Obama that is ignoring both.

Seth says

well to make any kind of judgement i would need some very specific examples and how frequently they occur. maybe such examples and not-politicized knowledge will be presented here ... but, if normal political propaganda happens as usual, i seriously doubt that we will ever get that kind of knowledge. my instinct here tells me that the real examples are nothing like you have characterized them above, but who knows ... me, i am not a immigration expert.

Ask Google, what is an anchor baby?

Tags

Comments

See Also