Talk:Anchor baby/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

Article getting too far afield

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 propose that we basically scrap the Immigration bennifits section, and that the Birthright citizenship section be kept essentially as is, as a stub with a link to the main article. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 03:18, 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)

If the article is not about the term anchor baby, then it needs to be renamed.--Ramsey2006 (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The article is about both the term and the concept. We do not have separate articles for the title "president of the United States" and the office. Nor separate articles for the "term" filibuster and the concept. An encyclopedia that only covers political rhetoric in terms of its etymology would be a poor one indeed. RayAYang (talk) 03:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
"Filibuster" is not a hate-filled epithet like "anchor baby" and 'wetback". Your analogies fall flat. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 04:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Please address the logic of my remarks instead of throwing around irrelevant inflammatory terminology. We are well aware of your point of view concerning the usages of the term "anchor baby." No analogy is ever a perfect congruence. But I believe mine is accurate: you do not dispute that anchor baby is a succinct description for a notable political concept/topic. One which is not otherwise covered in its full aspect in Wikipedia. And that this article is the natural place to look for information concerning that topic. If you do dispute any of these propositions, please do so. RayAYang (talk) 04:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are really looking for a NPOV article about some notable "new" political concept/topic (although you have yet to say exactly what it is), you might start by not using such inflamatory terminology as the title of the article. Try a more neutral and NPOV title for whatever the political concept/topic is that you believe needs to be written for inclusion in wikipedia. This is why we have separate articles for Wetback (slur) and Illegal immigrant. What is wrong with that precident? Why is such an inflamatory title for your concept/topic so necessary? I just don't understand the motivation for such an inflamatory title for such a topic. What is it that you really think that you will gain by using such an inflamatory title? --Ramsey2006 (talk) 05:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't pick the name. It happened. The anchor baby article resides at the juncture of two political topics -- that of birthright citizenship, and unwanted immigration by non-citizens (contrary to whatever Barrett claims, nobody has ever called me an anchor baby, despite being the child of naturalized citizens, and nobody is likely to in the near future). It is a subject of serious political contention; its scope, history, and ongoing effects are worthy of encyclopedic treatment; however, such a treatment would be too far afield for the article on birthright citizenship (which is, properly, not about contemporary political debates -- the information currently in the article there is as far as I think it should go), nor in the article on illegal immigration (since the topic extends to children born of birth tourism as well), and it is too specific a topic to include in a generalized article on immigration.
Generally speaking, I believe the information in these sections is reliably sourced, it is written from a neutral point of view, and it is of great relevance to the subject at hand and likely to be informative and helpful to those who come here looking to learn about anchor babies. That is sufficient for inclusion in Wikipedia; and it is best to keep information relevant to a topic together unless there are really good reasons to the contrary.
If you have a reasonable alternative title that has actually seen regular usage, we can try that. I believe the term is less than complimentary, but not so inflammatory that, even in the absence of alternatives, we need to move information on this topic elsewhere. In other words, I do not think simple removal of the information can be justified; if you want to fork it elsewhere, a necessary but insufficient condition is to propose a viable alternative title that does not do unholy amounts of damage on the English language and the reader's comprehension. (i.e. I would not consider "US-born citizen children of immigrants who are alleged to be used to ensure immigration status even for immigrants who are already permeanent residents" a legitimate title)
It is not clear to me that making a fork in order to avoid offending certain sensibilities is always the correct thing to do -- I believe that anchor baby is less than complimentary, but then, so is Bastard, and there's an article on that at Bastard (Law of England and Wales), so the precedents go both ways. But the principal barrier to moving the information elsewhere, is absence of an alternative name, readily recognized, for the same phenomenon. When only the name proposed by one side is in common usage, it tends to be the one that gets used, POV or not. (see, e.g., USA PATRIOT Act) RayAYang (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
The Anchor baby entry should be about the slur rather than the concept. There is already an entry on Family reunification, with subsections on Europe and Canada but missing a subsection for Family reunification in United States. I suggest the Immigration benefits and Birthright citizenship sections are moved to that entry, optionally leaving a sentence here with wlinks. Terjen (talk) 06:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I second the suggestion. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 12:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I have moved most of the applicable content to Family reunification, as that is a better place to cover the concept rather than the slur. Terjen (talk) 06:12, 22 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)

The content wasn't shunted off or removed, but moved to a more fitting entry. On my talk page, you wrote I suppose family reunification is a better place to talk about the law. The Family reunification entry is far more prominent that Anchor baby judging from the pages that link to either. Terjen (talk) 06:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags still needed?

Are the tags for neutrality and factual accuracy in the current version still needed? Terjen (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. If no one else speaks up, I'll remove them soon. Richwales (talk) 20:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
They're gone. Richwales (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
And now, they're back. (I guess this is what happens, when you're away from Wikipedia for a week... to take care of life's activities. ;-)
Not a single person responded to my entry, in the Usage section above. As I pointed out there, major media sources that are very-commonly cited and are extremely well-known (more so even than Grant Barrett), such as NBC News and PBS anchor Bonnie Erbe in the The Seattle Times, have consistently regarded this term as referring only to children born of illegal aliens in the United States. Just a cursory search will reveal this; Lexis-Nexis can confirm that the most common usage of this term is for children born to those here illegally.
And as I also said there: If we want to include that "wider usage" in this article, then that is fine. But to have that less-common "wider usage" as the only definition of this term, while totally omitting the more-common and widely-cited usage, is absurd, dishonest, and is a clear case of allowing personal ideology to interfere with NPOV.
The way this article is currently written (and the way some people seem determined to keep it!) is an obvious violation of: Wikipedia:WEIGHT#Undue_weight, as well as general accuracy and fairness principles.
Note: If you wish to respond to this post, but your response is about the "Usage" issue itself, then please instead respond to my post, in the pertinent section above.
Thank you, Pacificus (talk) 08:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It's been a while, and I have no intention of engaging in an edit war or of burning more lifespan contesting the issue here, but I note my wholehearted endorsement of Pacificus' characterization of the current article as "absurd, dishonest, and a clear case of allowing personal ideology to interfer with NPOV." Ray (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Lexicography

"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. --NDH75.35.242.5 (talk) 19:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Famous People

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)

Depends on how one defines "anchor baby" as to whether or not Malkin qualifies as one. The term generally refers to a baby born on U.S. soil which not only gets citizenship themselves but also becomes a path for citizenship for the parents, or at least keeps them from being deported (hence the "anchor"). Malkin's parents were already in the country legally at the time she was born, here on student visas; in other words, they didn't need her to be their anchor. Nolefan32 (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Totally aside from whether or not Michelle Malkin is an "anchor baby": Given that the term is widely perceived as derogatory, I don't think such a list would be appropriate here — any more than a list of famous African-Americans would belong in the article on the "N-word". It would, on the other hand, certainly be reasonable to consider such a list in the (more neutral) article on Birthright citizenship in the United States of America. Careful, though, not to editorialize on the apparent incongruity of Malkin's position on birthright citizenship (though a notable quote from someone to that effect, suitably cited to a reliable source, might be OK). Richwales (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
To the OP please see WP:POINT. Please do not disrupt wikipedia in an attempt to "make a point". Thank you.--Jersey Devil (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree

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)

Concerning nature of benefits, if any, conferred by anchor babies

I have removed two unsourced assertions.

  1. The first assertion, regarding a 10 year ban, is not only unsourced and unverified, but possibly incorrect. Warning: I am not a lawyer, the following is purely based on a naive reading of the relevant portions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which is why I have not entered the data into the article. Also, it is possibly too complex and of only passing relevance to the subject of the article. There is a 10 year ban on re-entry following illegal presence, but it only applies if there is a continuous 6 months of illegal presence -- there is no requirement that it is a further delay on waiting for a child to reach 21 years of age, making the original assertion erroneous. There is a permanent ban on re-entry following an aggregate year of presesnce. Further, data on enforcement and application of these statutes is lacking, and in neither case do they go to the heart of the "anchor baby" issue.
  2. The second assertion, that the vast majority of immigrants with citizen children in deportation proceedings are deported, is simply unsourced, and removed on that basis.

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)


Even though this comment is a bit older, I want to add some information here, since there is a lot of confusion surrounding this, and there are several separate issues commingled here.
Most relevant here is that the parents indeed DO have to wait until the child is 21 years old (I provided the detailed cite directly to the section of the law further down in a separate section). This has nothing to do with the parents being legal or illegal; it applies to all parents. Immigration law simply does not provide an immigration category for parents of US citizen *children*, only for parents of US citizen adults. In practical terms, this means that an "anchor baby" can't serve as an anchor until the parents are nearing retirement age. More distant relatives can't immigrate at all based on an "anchor babies" because there is no immigration category for grandparents, uncles, nephews, etc.
As far as the bans go: there are quite a few different bans. I agree that they are not relevant to the anchor baby issue. After six months of unlawful presence (which is NOT the exact same thing as "being an illegal immigrant"), a three year ban applies. After one year of unlawful presence, the ban becomes 10 years. There is a lifetime ban that applies to immigration fraud cases (that has been used against those former Nazis who immigrated in the 1950s without disclosing their Nazi party membership).
It is indeed true that ICE routinely deports parents of US citizen children. As soon as I find the correct cite for verification, I will add that. Kevin M Keane (talk) 03:10, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

"Some activists and propaganda publishers claim the term is derogatory"

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)

The second sentence of the article's lead paragraph says, "It is generally used as a derogatory reference ...". That seems entirely sufficient. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I removed the words at issue in this edit with an edit summary saying, "Revert POV characterization not supported by cited source (The New York Times). The cited source does claim that the term is derogatory." before seeing this discussion and after looking at only the first of the four(!!) supporting sources cited. Yes, some "activists and propaganda publishers" (AaPP) do claim the term is derogatory. However, some who are not AaPP also make this claim. Please note WP:UNDUE. In the case of the four cited supporting sources,
After this second look, I stand by my edit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Gosh, it's been a while since I dropped by this page. The term is loaded, but I can't support the claim that it's meant to apply to children of all immigrants - that, in my reading of the American political discourse, is an absurd and fringe interpretation. I think the current wording of the lead is an acceptable compromise, even if "some" is weaselly. The actual text of the article can stand to be cleaned up. RayTalk 03:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Strange opening sentence

"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)

Yes, that opening sentence is horribly offensive. An anchor baby is not "a child...", it's a stupid term for "a child..." The former wording implied that that's the standard, accepted term for such an individual, which is beyond asinine. I reworded to make it clear that we're talking about a term and not some peculiar brand of child.--Cúchullain t/c 23:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Derogatory

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)

1 - surely you would concede that it is used by more than just 1 side in the debate
2 - it is not exclusively used in a derogatory sense, many people (including, from a quick google-search CNN and presidential candidate Ron Paul) use it in the context of the every day illegal immigration debate. It is worthwhile to note that some people have used it in a derogatory context, it is inaccurate to blanketly describe the term as derogatory. - Schrandit (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
It's very well established that the term is disparaging, just look at virtually every one of sources that discuss the term itself (as opposed to just using or mentioning it). Of course that's different than saying it's an outright slur or only used to cause offense, but the whole point of the term is to criticize immigrants or immigration policy. This ranges from people who criticize the action of immigrants coming to the US to have, to those who want to deport these children despite them being natural-born US citizens. But it's always disparaging. And no, it's not fair to say that it 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".--Cúchullain t/c 20:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


Heavy bias

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)

We're discussing a phrase. Barrett is a lexicographer, meaning someone who specializes in defining words. We attribute his views to him, so readers know that it's his opinion. We don't present it as "the truth". WP:NPOV call on us to include all significant view, with weight proportional to their prominence. If there is a prominent view that we haven't included then let's add it.   Will Beback  talk  19:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence again

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)

Remove article bias and incorrect cites.

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.htmlKevin M Keane (talk) 08:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know dawg, from a quick google search it sound like once the kid is 21 the parents have a huge advantage in the immigration process. - Schrandit (talk) 10:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
The key point is that it takes about 23 years for the parents (21 is the age when the child can START the process, it takes another about two years to complete). If the parents are age 25 when they have their US citizen child, they couldn't immigrate until they are almost 50. It plain makes no sense to put life plans on hold for that long.
Also keep in mind that the term "anchor baby" as used by most people implies that a whole extended family could immigrate ("chain migration" is another term sometimes used in this context). But in reality, even this one heavily delayed benefit pretty much stops at the parents. Let's say that the mother is 25 years old when they decide to take this approach for immigration to the USA. They also want to bring the mother's brother (age 27) to the USA. They would get started by getting pregnant. By the time the child is born, the mother is probably about 27 and the uncle is 29.
The mother could then immigrate when she is age 50. At age 55, she would become a US citizen and could file a petition for her brother (age 57 at that time). That takes currently (as of June 2010) between 15 and 23 years. So the uncle would be going on 80 before he could immigrate through the use of an "anchor baby".
Basically, it simply makes no sense to take this approach. Kevin M Keane (talk) 04:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
That may well be true. In fact, there may be few actual "anchor babies" according to the definition of the term. But the term is used by pundits and others. Perhaps when they us the term they are including all children of illegal immigrants born in the US, even when the parents have no expectation that the birth will not speed up their progress towards citizenship.   Will Beback  talk  05:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the term is generally used by pundits (and as such in my mind actually isn't as much derogatory as political, but that is a completely different issue). However, the implication of the word "anchor" is clearly that the pundits either assume, or want to imply, that it allows for quick immigration. BTW, please be careful with using the term "citizenship" in this context. Many people treat it as synonymous to "legal immigration" while in reality these are very different concepts. Kevin M Keane (talk) 09:59, 1 June 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 point is that because of the delay of a quarter to half a human lifetime, the immigration benefit is so minimal as to be non-existent. Keep in mind that generally, the biggest interest in immigration happens with young people (in their 20s, at most 30s), and they generally want to get it done and over with before they settle down.
Once people settle down, they tend to stay put. This is a well-established global pattern, BTW, not limited to US immigration.
When people use the term "anchor baby" they assume that the parents receive almost immediate benefits, and then would be able to bring in yet more relatives. Thus the use of the word "anchor".
Incidentally, it is also misleading to state that the child could sponsor "other relatives at age 18" since there is applicable immigration category for "other relatives"!
The only other candidates whom the US citizen child could sponsor are his or her brothers and sisters - who usually would be US citizens themselves. Even if they are not, saying "sponsoring at age 18" is misleading because it glosses over the multidecade quota delay (currently between 15 and 23 years) and a number of other details (I'd be happy to go into more detail, but it would be a very lengthy legal discussion!) Kevin M Keane (talk)
All we can safely do is report what the sources say. In this case the sources consistently indicate that the term is used to imply immigrants are having children in the US in order to (unfairly) help the rest of the family get a leg up in the immigration process. The fact that people who use a term like this are ignorant of even the basics of applicable immigration law is no surprise.--Cúchullain t/c 12:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Some technicalities are wrong

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)

Connotation of the term

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.

Thank you for being so civil in this discussion! I think you are mixing two separate issues, though. It is true that very few illegal immigrants overall are deported. But that applies to those without children just as much as to those with children - for the context of anchor babies, the low overall deportation number really is not all that relevant. If anything, it underscores the point that having an "anchor baby" makes no sense from a parent's perspective: if the risk of deportation is that low, AND the benefit doesn't accrue until decades later, why would any potential parent do it?
As for the point about "legal immigrants" and "only deported when they commit crimes" - that, too, is irrelevant for the anchor baby discussion. Deportation is deportation (except for some fine legal points that are irrelevant here), regardless of how the person ends up in deportation proceedings. It is true that ICE focuses on criminal aliens (legal and illegal). The point here is simply that an "anchor baby" does not provide any benefit in deportation proceedings, regardless of how the parent ended up in the proceedings.
The issue of "legal immigrants deported for crimes" reflects the focus of ICE, and has nothing to do with whether or not the alien is a parent.
If you feel that I'm wrong, I'd encourage you to find a source that specifically cites that parents of US citizen children are treated differently depending on whether they are deported for illegal immigration or for crimes. I'm not aware of any evidence for that.
Kevin M Keane (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I just now saw your post here; I had missed it and would have replied here first before my revert of your last edit to the article. Anyway, some comments:
  • Of course, as I have stated earlier (I think), I agree that having an "anchor baby" for the purpose of gaining citizenship is completely futile. Furthermore, as I stated above, I simply don't believe that most Mexicans even want US citizenship, so I think that that is a canard.
  • Having said that, it does not necessarily follow that there are no benefits to having an "anchor baby". Having such a child immediately secures access to superior health care, free public education where the child will learn the world's language,[2] and greater public assistance than is generally available in Latin America. Even someone who wanted to eventually return home to Mexico might see those as tangible, real-time benefits.
  • You say, Deportation is deportation, regardless of how the person ends up in deportation proceedings. I'm sorry, but I disagree. It appears to me from everything I have seen and read (and the source you provided was excellent support for this as well) that ICE has no inclination to deport parents of anchor babies if such parents follow the law. Stay within the law once you are here, and your original crime of entering the country will be tacitly forgotten about. Where is the news footage of PTA officers being deported for nothing more than being here illegally? Have any fathers been whisked from maternity wards where their anchor baby was being born and thrown into an ICE van and returned across the border?
ICE knows that if they were to start taking innocent parents and shipping them across the border, separating them from their children, that there would be an uproar in this country. HuskyHuskie (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No, non-citizens (even legal immigrants until they had a Green Card for, I believe, 10 years) are generally not eligible for most kinds of public benefits. Having a US citizen child does not change that.
Since we do not have a public health insurance program, nobody is "eligible" for our "superior health care" unless the can pay for it. Being able to pay, of course, has nothing to do with citizenship or parenthood. By the way, many Americans find the Mexican health care system far superior; there is very strong medical traffic from San Diego to Tijuana. I haven't tried it myself, but supposedly the quality of care is much higher due to more personal attention, along with a lower price tag.68.6.244.92 (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
ICE does focus on criminal aliens, that much is true. The article I provided also shows that parenthood doesn't make much difference - at least for criminals, but I see no evidence that it would be limited to that type of deportation. ICE does have the inclination (but not the resources) to deport ALL illegal aliens (parents or childless) who, to borrow your term, follow the law. What I am questioning is your assertion that somehow for some reason ICE would focus on childless people. I have never seen any evidence of that, and it seems pretty nonsensical.
As far as the footage goes: Google for Elvira Arellano. Footage of ANY kind of deportation is pretty rare. Again - the purpose of this discussion isn't to convince you, but to make this the best article it can be. You are welcome to prove me wrong, and using cites to update the article. Just find actual direct evidence, rather than assertions.
Basically, what you are saying in your last paragraph is that Americans by-and-large SUPPORT having "anchor babies" and benefiting from them. If that was true, this whole article would have to be rewritten. But it's not necessary. Such stories DO make the news from time to time, and they generally die with a wimper. Do you remember Elvira Arellano?
If anything, the uproar you think ICE would be afraid of has actually happened with "criminal" parents of US citizens. There were some cases of long-term legal immigrants - and upstanding and popular citizens - being deported for something as minor as a DUI, or in one case, a father in his 40s was deported because of a 25-year old conviction for "underage sex" (he was 18, she was 17, I think). I would dig up the cites for that, but quite frankly it's really not relevant to the article itself. 68.6.244.92 (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Hi Husky. The thing is we have a lot of sources now that give a pretty consistent definition of the term that conflicts with the definition you introduced in some important ways. The sources largely agree with Grant Barrett's Double Tongued Dictionary, which says an "anchor baby" is "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." None of them that I see specifically say anything about avoiding deportation. Additionally, most of the given sources specifically call the term derogatory, pejorative, and disparaging, so that's certainly something that needs to be included here. Our definition still needs tweaking, but I don't think your edit did the trick.
I think you're mischaracterizing my comments about Paul and Dobbs. Schrandit was trying claim that the term is used neutrally and by both sides of the debate. However, the examples he gave were Paul and Dobbs, who are critics of immigration policy and were using the term to criticize the people described, so the point was not made.--Cúchullain t/c 13:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Cuchullain:
I actually agree that, in light of the current sources we have, you were correct in reverting my edit; had I examined them more carefully I would not have written it as I did--there's just too much support listed for the current view to justify my edit.
However, when I have time I wish to examine the issue further; I'm just not convinced that these sources reflect actual usage. And I was concerned because I thought you were disallowing the introduction of the opinions of Dobbs et al. Now I think I understand, you are stating that they ("immigration reductionists"--what a tortured euphemism that is) are the only ones who use the term "anchor babies", and that since Dobbs and Paul are part of their number, using them as evidence that both sides use the term accomplishes nothing. Okay, I think I get that now.
But I still disagree with you on two points.
  • First of all, you say that Paul and Dobbs (and I guess most people who bandy the term about) do so using it in a derogatory manner. I've read (quickly) both of the sources[3][4] that other editor (sorry, I forget his name) provided, and I just don't see the term being used in a derogatory manner. If someone says "Oh, you're looking for HuskyHuskie? He's that short obese guy over at by the bar", I suppose I can be offended, but since I am about 165cm tall and weigh about 125 kilos, that person is just using a descriptive term whose accuracy I would be an ass to deny. I don't see where "anchor babies" in these references is being used derogatorily, it's simply being used to describe a human being with a term that is shorthand for child of illegal alien born in the United States who thus has an automatic legal claim on US citizenship and the benefits of said citizenship. It's just a lot shorter and therefore facilitates conversation. Look, I agree that there are a lot of people out there saying that it is derogatory, but it appears to me that the term is being used by one side in the debate but being defined by the other side. That's about as unfair a situation as can be had in a public discussion.
  • Secondly, your interpretation of that particular source you chose, the Double Tongued Dictionary, is interesting. I think you're reading into it something that is not there. That definition says nothing about gaining citizenship. It speaks of gaining a "legal foothold" in the US. Sure that could be interpreted as wanting citizenship, but by no means is that clear. Indeed, as I wrote above, over the past 40 years I have known scores of illegal aliens who wanted to be here--and who would run out the back door of the factory when La Migra arrived to avoid deportation--but who did not desire citizenship. Of course, I have seen for myself that there are other sources that better support your point, but I consider it instructive that your own unconscious coloration of the debate caused you to read in there something that was not there at all.
By the way, I appreciate the civility of the discussion, and hope that we can keep it there. I have one little request. Could you go to those two sources from Dobbs and Paul and cut and paste into this section some quotes where you feel these two persons are using the term "Anchor Baby" in a derogatory manner? As I said, such usage escaped my brief overview. HuskyHuskie (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it is certainly more productive and less frustrating when all parties behave in a civilized manner in controversial discussions, and I certainly appreciate it to. On the issue of citizenship, I didn't say anything about the family seeking citizenship, nor does the current wording in the lede. If anything I think sponsorship is more commonly stated as the reason for having "anchor babies" (because, of course, immigrants must always have a reason for having children). I agree the intro wording needs work, but I think your version wasn't it, as it introduced something that doesn't appear in the sources. I think the Double Tongued Dictionary definition is more the direction we need to go.--Cúchullain t/c 12:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I'd just like to chime in and say that I don't think the intro should describe the term as only being used by opponents of illegal immigration, or that it should be described as derogatory. - Schrandit (talk) 23:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Except that is is only used by opponents of immigration, and the sources routinely describe it as derogatory.--Cúchullain t/c 12:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Who uses the term?

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'm not married to the term but I think that anon had a point. I can't recall ever hearing the term outside the context of illegal immigration to the United States - Schrandit (talk) 06:52, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the word 'illegal' last time - I have no feeling one way or the other. Being from the UK, I have no investment in this at all, and will edit here for POV vio etc. I deleted the word last time because it created a redlink, that's all. Etrigan (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I think it's clear that the term is used in a much wider circle than just those who want to reduce illegal immigration specifically. Most of the sources we've given for the definition (the NYT, the Double Tongued Dictionary, and the Chicago Tribune, at least) are quite specific that the term is applied to children of any immigrant in general, not just illegals. In the article Grant Barrett is quoted as saying "Those who use this term tend to be opposed to *all* immigration and immigrants, not illegal immigration..." "Immigration reductionist" is just a silly euphemism or blanket term Wikipedia has settled on for some reason, but it's where our information on the subject is located, so it's where we need to direct our readers.--Cúchullain t/c 12:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, Bill, I do understand that that is your understanding. You may very well be correct, and Grant Barrett does provide you with specifically the support your position needs. But I'm still far from convinced. For one thing, he's a lexicographer, not a policy person (though admitedly, lexicographers tend to have an incredibly broad grasp of knowledge). Also, as I read his statement about "those who use their immigration stance as a mask for racism and xenophobia", I feel like I'm sensing his own POV. For one thing, the only one of his sources that comes close to supporting the racist argument is Daniel Maldonado, and he's not exactly a neutral person on such matters, is he?
So again, here's what I'm seeing: This term is being used by one group: "Immigration reductionists" (we can leave aside the legal/illegal part of it; this we agree on), right? But it is being defined by everyone else. If the group of people who don't like or use the term are allowed to define it, then the definition is suspect, in my opinion. Granted, there are times when groups invent or adopt a term, and then proffer a bullshit "definition" in order to hide their actual agenda. I'm acknowledging that that may be possible here. But the threshold for imposing a definition upon a group for its own jargon must, I believe, be set awfully high, unless the group itself is clearly shown to be so extremist as to call into question its right to participate in the public discussion. For example, most of us would be comfortable dismissing the views of the American Nazi Party on this issue; they are simply not part of the discussion. But opponents of immigration? Are such people--as a group, not a few extremist individuals--so incredibly outside of the mainstream of American politics that we can dismiss everything they say? I'm not comfortable with that. And since I'm not comfortable with that, I'm also not comfortable defining "anchor baby" without asking, what do these "immigration reductionists" mean by the term? Thus far, as far as I can see, the contention that the term is a negative one is only coming from the opponents of immigration reductionists, and I don't think it's fair to allow them to monopolize the defining of the term. I would like to see something on this talk page showing what the immigration reductionists themselves--some actual cut-and-pasted comments--that supports the contention that the term is negative in its usage.HuskyHuskie (talk) 10:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Currently there are several sources for the definition of "anchor baby" and they're all pretty consistent. Whether or not some sources are critical of the term is immaterial, really; it doesn't mean that the definition they offer is wrong. The definition given by the NYT is pretty consistent with this definition offered by the "immigration reductionist" group FAIR. The only real difference is that FAIR probably would presumably argue that the term is not disparaging, but we have several sources specifically noting that it is, whether the people who use it intend it to be or not. To use your same logic, you seem to be assuming that anyone who defines the term as disparaging must be "opponents of immigration reductionists", which certainly isn't the case. I doubt Eric Zorn, quoted here, should be called an "opponent of immigration reductionists", but his article is about his decision to stop using such a loaded term in the future. If you want to challenge it, I think it would be more productive for you to find sources saying that the term is not disparaging.--Cúchullain t/c 12:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The type of immigration an "anchor child" supposedly allows is legal immigration. That means that those who use the term are attempting to restrict LEGAL immigration. That is why "illegal immigration reductionist" is fundamentally flawed. Kevin M Keane (talk) 02:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but the thinking of single issue User:Kevin M Keane confuses me, perhaps because the thinking itself is confused. Look, if Frank opposes having illegal immigrants enter the US and having babies born here as US citizens, that does not make Frank an opponent of legal immigration. That makes Frank someone who opposes a)illegal immigration, and b)using illegal immigration to gain access to additional privileges. Frank may very well also support increased legal immigration and still be entirely consistent in his views. There is no "fundamental flaw" (I'm literally laughing at that claim) in the term "illegal immigration reductionist"; insofar as the term "immigration reductionist" is meaningful, all it does to add "illegal" on the front end is to specify what type of immigration the person wants reduced. No logical flaw at all, as far as I can see. HuskyHuskie (talk) 10:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
He has a point - the type of immigration "anchor babies" are supposed to be conceived to facilitate is in fact legal. Children born in the US are legally Americans and entitled to the benefits of American citizenship, and American citizens are legally allowed to sponsor immigration for close kin. The critics believe this is a "legal loophole" - emphasis on the "legal" - that should be closed at least in certain cases.--Cúchullain t/c 12:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but the opponents of this alleged practice are not primarily concerned with application of this loophole. To assert this is saying that such opponents are not really concerned about a) the illegal entry of the immigrants in the first place, nor b) that the baby's family collecting immediate benefits of US residency, but what they are 'really concerned about is c) the application, eighteen years from now, of this loophole. That's ridiculous. Sure, there are clearly some people who are concerned about these people gaining citizenship through this loophole, but this is a reason why they oppose illegal immigration. Besides, I don't see the sources showing "immigration reductionists" frothing at the mouth over the children of legal resident aliens. Most of these people are concerned about illegal immigration, first and foremost. And if that was taken care of, they believe, the issue of anchor babies would be no more. HuskyHuskie (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No one is saying that people who oppose "anchor babies" aren't primarily concerned with illegal immigration in the first place. But as the title indicates, this is an article on the term "anchor baby", not "things that immigration reductionists oppose". Most of the sources do indicate that the term "anchor baby" is applied to the children of any immigrant, not just illegals.--Cúchullain t/c 12:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how. If the immigrants were in this country legally would they need a child to anchor them here? Can any one think of any instance where the child of legal immigrants to this country has been refereed to as an Anchor Baby? - Schrandit (talk) 20:23, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
As I just said, a child born in the US is, in virtually any circumstance, legally a US citizen, regardless of who their parents were. US citizens can legally sponsor certain family members. As such the process is legal; opponents think it shouldn't be. Of course it doesn't actually work the way opponents believe it does - the child can't sponsor family members until they are old enough, it is unlikely that the sponsorship would be approved if the family members were shown to be in the country illegally, etc., etc. - but most of the world doesn't work the way they believe it does either.
Here are the sources specifically indicating that the term is used for the children of any immigrant, not just illegals.[8][9] From FAIR: "...anchor baby is defined as an offspring of an illegal immigrant or other non-citizen... --Cúchullain t/c 21:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
The FAIR definition seems to support my assertion. If any immigrant has come to this country legally why would their child be described as an anchor baby? - Schrandit (talk) 22:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Foreigners can be in the country legally in a variety of ways. Someone on a short-tern tourist visa is in the country legally, for example. There's an entire industry devoted to "birth tourism", which if I recall correctly is popular with South Koreans.   Will Beback  talk  22:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Indeed, and when those visa's run out that person becomes an illegal. - Schrandit (talk) 00:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Not if they leave, citizen-baby in hand.   Will Beback  talk  00:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
If they didn't intend to stay in the US wouldn't it not be an anchor baby? - Schrandit (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
When the kid is old enough they can ship him off to university in America, and then have him petition to bring his parents. No laws are broken - it's all legal.   Will Beback  talk  03:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Quite so. But I think we're trying to apply to much logic here; the bottom line is we have various sources indicating that the term is applied to the children of any immigrant, and that's that. Even the article from the anti-immigrant group FAIR, which is mostly a screed against illegal immigration, notes that the term is applied to children of any "non-US citizen" as well. There's no pressing need to rationalize it, it's just a term, and it doesn't correspond closely to anything that's actually happening anyway.--Cúchullain t/c 12:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. The logic isn't the issue. We're just here to report how it's used, by whom, in what context, and, mostly, what significant sources say about the term.   Will Beback  talk  10:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Renewing the conversation

I see some disingenuousness here.

  • The term is obviously negative in the sense that people are using the term for a particular concept and they consider the concept to be negative. That doesn't mean it's negative in the sense of being negative above and beyond the concept, like an ethnic slur.
  • It's silly to claim that the concept is about legal immigration on the grounds that any immigration it allows has to be legal by definition. That's picking on a technicality of how we use language; in this context, it's about illegal immigration because it's about immigration that would otherwise be illegal, not about immigration that is illegal now.
  • The problem with the sources claiming that the term applies to all immigrants is that someone on one side of a dispute is a poor quality source for the position of the opposing side. Google it and look at the other hits. 1 is Wikipedia and 2 is FAIR. The third hit (American Resistance): "Anchor babies - children born in the United States to illegal alien mothers". The fourth hit (ABC News): "U.S-born children of illegal immigrants used to 'anchor' the parents in the country." The fifth hit (politico.com): "children of illegal immigrants born in the US". The sixth hit: Time article "Dispelling "Anchor Baby" Myths": "The Pew Hispanic Center, which conducts stellar research on everything from health care to religion, released a report today quantifying just how many children are born in the U.S. to illegal immigrants." The seventh hit (American Patrol): "she, like thousands of other women who enter the United States illegally each year, knows that giving birth in the U.S. means her child will be an "anchor baby" and granted U.S. citizenship. For Alma, that means her child will immediately qualify for a slew of federal, state and local benefit programs." The eighth hit "I was an 'anchor baby'" is against the concept, but still refers to illegal immigration. Ninth hit is Doubletongued. The tenth hit (wisegeek) also refers to illegals. I gave up at this point, but basically, every single hit from supporters except the FAIR one you quoted uses it to refer to the children of illegal immigrants. By quoting FAIR you've quoted an anomaly, not a typical use.

Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ken, I found your arguments difficult to digest, but after re-reading them, I must say, you have made some excellent points.
  • "Negative" terms are not necessarily "slurs"
  • The predominant use of this term is for the children of illegals
These points have been kept out of this article by those who choose to construe the evidence in such a way that makes it look like those who use this term are bigoted anti-immigrationists, which I do not believe to be true. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Even if only inside the phrase "predominantly" this really should be included. - Schrandit (talk) 18:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I struck out the above words because I realize that the lead sentence of the article does make the point properly. The problem is that the bulk of the article then begins to twist the usage to where it becomes almost unrecognizable as connected to teh lead. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
My middle point was in response to this above:
The type of immigration an "anchor child" supposedly allows is legal immigration. That means that those who use the term are attempting to restrict LEGAL immigration. That is why "illegal immigration reductionist" is fundamentally flawed.
The point is that saying that such a person wants to restrict "legal immigration" is based on a technicality of wording. He wants to restrict immigration that would be illegal if it wasn't for the rule (and which he considers to be similar to other immigration that is illegal now). Ken Arromdee (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
But the article doesn't say that the term is used by persons who want to restrict illegal immigration. The article says that the term is used by "immigration reductionists", wikilinking to a redirect to the Immigration reduction in the United States article. What an "immigration reductionist" might be is a matter of inference, and you've apparently inferred contrarily to the implication in the redirect.
I have a different nit to pick, though. I'd imagine that "immigration reductionists" use the term, and that "illegal-immigration reductionists" (to coin another term) use the term, but I'd also presume that some who do not fall into either of those (probably overlapping) categories also use the term. IMHO, it is much too easy to draw the inference from the wording of the lead sentence that it is Wikipedia's position that the term is used exclusively or primarily by persons and groups fitting the characterization "immigration reductionist". Here is one example of the use of the term by someone who appears to not be an "immigration reductionist"—or at least not clearly. Like the (to euphemize) N-word, and the B-word, and other words sometimes used do derogate or to shock, the term seems to me to have become a part of the language. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
You may have a point on this, it may not be necessary to say who uses the term. But unlike other slurs, which (like the ones you mention) may turn up in a variety of other contexts, this one only turns up in the one context of the immigration discussion. At least, all of the reliable sources we have for it discuss it entirely in that context. And clearly the ones using a disparaging term are the ones who are against the disparaged.--Cúchullain t/c 15:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks like the IrishCentral article that Wtmitchell found discusses Bill O'Reilly's use of the term. It appears that he does have what could be called "immigration reductionist" views. Bill O'Reilly's political views#Immigration and border control, although that isn't what he's known for.   Will Beback  talk  17:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
I object to the characterization of the term as a "slur". HuskyHuskie (talk) 00:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Granted. The article doesn't say it's a slur.--Cúchullain t/c 12:34, 29 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)

Who is being deported?

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 think you are mixing two unrelated concepts. Since we are talking about the supposed impact of children on the parent's immigration, the only relevant point simply is that the risk of deportation is the same for parents and non-parents. It may be higher for criminals than for non-criminals, but that's true for parents and for singles alike. In any case, this is a discussion we already had further up in the section on Connotation of the Term.
By the way, the summary of the edit also pointed to the talk page where I already elaborated on that point. Kevin M Keane (talk) 13:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Penalty flag

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)

That was just passing vandalism, an unfortunate but unavoidable side effect of allowing anyone to edit. I already reverted it.--Cúchullain t/c 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"Immigration reductionists"?

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)

As the sources clearly say, the term is not only used by people who oppose illegal immigration, but also by those who oppose all immigration in general. Please do not remove the wording again without consensus.--Cúchullain t/c 20:15, 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)

Sorry, but the sources show that they do. The term is widely used for the child of any immigrant, by anyone criticizing immigration. Please do not remove this again.--Cúchullain t/c 21:46, 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)

Let's start by seeing how the sources say the term is used. Read the "History and usage" section of the article, and you'll see that there is evidence of "anchor baby" being used for children of any immigrant — and even for children of US citizens of Latino ancestry. As I see it, you can't legitimately challenge the "immigration reductionists" qualifier unless you challenge several of the sources cited in the opening paragraph. On that basis, I believe the "immigration reductionists" qualifier is supported by the sources (which, in turn, appear in my opinion to be reliable), and I'm going to reinstate the term (unless someone else beats me to it). You do, of course, have the right to continue to disagree — but if you do, you need to give other editors (there are other editors out there who care about this topic) a chance to chime in — and, if necessary, we may need to seek additional opinions. I would urge you to carefully read WP:CONSENSUS (the consensus policy) and WP:DR (the dispute resolution policy). Do not simply strike the disputed phrase again, or else you are extremely likely to find yourself being blocked for disruptive editing, and the point you are trying to discuss will get muddied by concerns over your misbehaviour. Richwales (talk · contribs) 06:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
I've filed a notice on the edit-warring noticeboard regarding this dispute. Hopefully we can quickly get a proper discussion and (if necessary) dispute resolution going here, but I felt it was necessary to submit a formal notice just in case. Richwales (talk · contribs) 07:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Anon, the warning I gave you highlighted the appropriate solutions to the problem. The procedure is to discuss, as we are doing, not to continue revert warring to your preferred version. As the warning also said, Dispute resolution is also available if we can't reach an agreement, and you can post at any relevant noticeboard for help.
As to the matter at hand: as the cited sources say the term is used beyond illegal immigration, I think we would need to see a source that the term is used only by people who oppose illegal immigration only in order to include that view.--Cúchullain t/c 14:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Birthright generation

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)

What about a merger of Birthright generation into Birthright citizenship in the United States? That seems, to me, to be a more natural merger. I would hesitate to merge the other article's material to here (Anchor baby) because this article is supposed to be specifically about the derogatory epithet, not about the citizenship law controversy in general. Richwales (talk · contribs) 16:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Statistics

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)

A good rule to follow is that the sources should mention the topic. If a source gives statistics for "anchor babies" then we could use those.   Will Beback  talk  20:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
And I think it's important, in this situation, for Richmondian and everyone else to understand that we aren't challenging (or even addressing) whether the statistics in question are reliable, popular, politically correct, etc. The problem here is that the sources in question do not discuss (or even contain) the phrase "anchor baby". This article is not about the pros and cons of illegal immigration, birth tourism, birthright citizenship, etc. — it is specifically about the history and controversy surrounding the term "anchor baby" — and since the cited sources do not discuss (or even mention) this specific phrase, they aren't relevant to the subject of this article. They may, however, be extremely germane to the general topic as covered in other articles. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:57, 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)

The fact that there's other irrelevant crap in the article isn't a good reason to add more irrelevant crap.--Cúchullain t/c 16:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I could possibly support the limited use of a small number of citations that report vocal public opposition to illegal immigration and birth tourism, even if not every source explicitly uses the magic phrase. But a section full of material that does nothing but talk about the extent of illegal immigration and birth tourism, apparently leaving it to the reader to conclude that the phenomenon is a bad thing, and without using the expression "anchor baby" even once, simply doesn't belong here. I confess I haven't gone through all the current sources in this article in some time, but if other examples of completely irrelevant and pointless citations do exist, I would favour deleting them. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:39, 24 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)

It seems to me that the first half of the first of your three paragraphs in question (talking about the number of newborns who are offspring of illegal immigrants) could logically fit somewhere in the "Controversies" section of the article. I'm less certain about the second half of the first paragraph, since it seems to merge the two issues of US-born children of illegal immigrants (arguably relevant to the concern over so-called "anchor babies") on the one hand, and people who may have immigrated illegally as children (not "anchor babies" per the intended meaning of the term). The other two paragraphs (talking about the monetary costs to society for supporting illegal aliens and their US-born children) don't seem to me to fit very well anywhere in the existing text; as I said before, these factoids may have a better home at Illegal immigration to the United States and/or Birth tourism. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Richmondian, I left that note on your talk page because you were edit warring material that had been challenged by two different editors and refusing to discuss on talk, which is the standard procedure. If you continued, you would have been blocked; my warning was just that - a warning of what would happen if you didn't stop.
Again, your cites don't even mention the subject of this article, which is the term "anchor baby". They just add random statistics on illegal immigration, some of which aren't even about the children who are labeled as "anchor babies" by the anti-immigrant crowd. Yes, there's more irrelevant bunk in the article than what you've added; I assure you, the only reason I haven't removed it is that I haven't gotten around to it yet. But at any rate its presence does not justify adding more of the same.--Cúchullain t/c 12:47, 26 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)

It is (IMO) reasonable to require sources (with limited exceptions such as what I suggested earlier) to mention the term "anchor baby" explicitly, since this article is supposed to be about the term itself and shouldn't try to deal with the general issue of illegal immigration (any more than, for example, it would be appropriate for the article about the "N-word" to include detailed information about racial bigotry in the US). The new article you cited does, in fact, seem appropriate for inclusion in the article, as long as it isn't used in such a way as to blur the line between US-born children of illegal immigrants and foreign-born babies brought into the US by their illegal-immigrant parents. As for Cúchullain not seeming to mind the other references, he has stated that he does not like them and would like to see them go, but that it's going to take time which he hasn't had yet. I, too, object to any sources already in the article that stray too far from the term "anchor baby", and I hope to take some time soon to go through the article carefully in search of such. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:24, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Richwales. Anything you can do to clean up the article will be much appreciated. Richmondian, it is required that a source actually be about the subject to be included in an article on that subject. This article is on the term "anchor baby", not on "random statistics about illegal immigration". Additionally, as Rich points out, I've said repeatedly that I do mind the other irrelevant material being in the article, I just haven't gotten around to dealing with it yet, and at any rate that's not an excuse to add more nonsense. Period. This is beginning to look like a willful misinterpretation of my comments.--Cúchullain t/c 20:31, 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)

What a silly line of argument. I say specifically that "that material is crap and shouldn't be in the article," and you say "that means you must secretly like it!" Sorry, it's abundantly clear you're just trying to deflect attention from the obvious deficiency of your own material. And yes, it's required that a source actually be relevant to the topic to be included. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, or for excessive listing of statistics. Material should be given proper weight to all "all relevant and related viewpoints" (ie, irrelevant material should get none). Etc.Cúchullain t/c 22:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
The true problem here is that the article is specifically on "anchor baby" as a term. It's not about a specific kind of child or on illegal immigration in general. Similarly, "cracker" is on the term "cracker", it's not about white people.Cúchullain t/c 22:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Going through this article with a fine-toothed comb

OK, as promised, I'm going to try going through this article now, looking for things that don't seem to belong.

  • The second paragraph of the lede goes into way too much detail. I think it could/should be trimmed down to something like this: The term "anchor baby" is a misnomer, since a US citizen child cannot file for a US visa for his/her parents until after his/her 21st birthday. — and the rest of the material can, if necessary, be added to the first paragraph of the "Controversies" section.
  • I didn't see anything in the "History and usage" section that seemed obviously out of place. As I said earlier, I believe that even if a source does not literally contain the expression "anchor baby", it still may be relevant and appropriate (and therefore acceptable here), depending on how it is used. The text of the section remains closely tied to the subject, so I don't see any problems.
  • In the "Controversies" section, I think there should be sources substantiating the claims that start the first two paragraphs — sources that explicitly use the phrase "anchor baby" and allege the stated assumptions. Also, the sources in the first paragraph seem overly broad (e.g., don't cite the entire Immigration and Nationality Act as a source, cite specific sections instead — or, better yet, find a secondary source which explains how the law works against would-be immigrants who are or were in the US illegally). In the last paragraph, I'm uneasy at a cite to a video of Congressman Goode's speech as a source at the very end of the paragraph, presumably intended to cover the entire paragraph; there should be separate cites supporting the various individual claims; and is there not any report in print about this speech (a secondary source) that would be more appropriately used here?
  • In the "See also" section, I do not see any relevance to the topic of Asylum shopping or Canadians of convenience, and I would remove these. Note that "Canadians of convenience" really is a different topic (it's not the same as Canadian "anchor babies").

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)

Looking good. Let's worry about the lead after we get the article in a better state. I think your instincts with what to do with the material are right on. The "Controversies" section is the biggest obstacle to improving the article. It needs to be thoroughly weeded out. I think the PolitiFact article linked to above will help with a rewrite, as it contains a lot of relevant information and links to other sources.--Cúchullain t/c 12:53, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
The lead is definitely the most important place to begin. I'd check into the citations
  • double tongued dictionary

not a reliable source

Do not mention anchor babies at all (I don't think this should be the standard -- but Cuchu does)
  • ^ Minutemen protest near a church on YouTube

Is a primary source -- not the type wiki accepts

Website is invalid

no mention of anchor babies

  • Visa bulletin also no mention of anchor babies

All I have time for now.

Richmondian (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead is meant to be a summary of the article body; when we fix the article we can fix the lead, it's useless to do so before.
Of the sources you list, at the least the Double-Tongued Dictionary certainly is reliable. It's written by lexicographer Grant Barrett, who edited the Oxford Dictionary of Political Slang, among other things. Additionally, the real problem with the USCIS sources is that they're primary sources, and can't be used for any interpretive claim. Fortunately there are plenty of sources that do offer interpretations of the material that we can use. Much of the rest of that is the irrelevant nonsense I spoke of above.--Cúchullain t/c 15:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
One thing the article doesn't do well now that it needs to do is to discuss the discrepancy between the anti-immigrant crowd's perceptions of "anchor babies" and the reality. Despite their claims, the immigration benefits an "anchor baby" actually bring to its family are slight; there's no real evidence that people are coming into the country illegally to have their children be Americans, etc. Something the PolitiFact article sharply notes is that the "birth tourism" thing isn't at all connected to illegal immigration, in that it's people who come to the US legally, a fact the hacks gloss over.--Cúchullain t/c 15:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Note that, according to other material in the article, some people choose to apply the "anchor baby" label to US-born children of legal as well as illegal immigrants. And, in theory, some people in the US on a student visa, H-1B, etc. might imagine that their chances of staying longer (possibly even getting a green card) could be improved by having a US-born child. So, in some people's view at least, there may in fact be a valid connection here with the concept of birth tourism.
I think it's perfectly fine that there is a source regarding Michelle Malkin that doesn't explicitly use the expression "anchor baby". The source is supporting the claim that Malkin was born to (legal, non-citizen) immigrant parents. This point is relevant because some people may see an incongruity with anti-"anchor baby" comments from someone who would herself be defined by some as an "anchor baby" (by people who choose to apply this term to all US-born children of immigrants, not just children of illegal immigrants). The fact that the source itself does not say "anchor baby" is not a problem in this case, IMO; if Cúchullain disagrees with me on this, I'd certainly be open to hearing his reasons. Richwales (talk · contribs) 18:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, "anchor baby" is applied to children of legal as well as illegal immigrants. The point of my comment was that people speaking about "birth tourism" as if it were tied to illegal immigration, are incorrect. Also, the Malkin bit is WP:SYNTH. We're putting her own statements on "anchor babies" (which aren't really noteworthy) together with a different source saying she was born to immigrants herself, to imply a conclusion not stated in either source. Considering that it's not noteworthy to begin with it should go.--Cúchullain t/c 18:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
I think reasonable people can honestly disagree over whether Michelle Malkin's comments (in which she used the term "anchor babies") are less, or more, noteworthy than the other comments currently being reported in the article. If we can find a reliable source reporting someone else suggesting an incongruity between Malkin's position and her own origins, that might be appropriate to use here in place of the existing source. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:56, 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)

Wrong again. I said the Malkin bits should NOT be in the article and explained why. It generally works better if you read comments before responding to them.
Rich, I agree with you that if we found a third-party RS speaking about Malkin's views on anchor babies in light of her background, it could be used. But without that's it's WP:SYNTH. I didn't see anything useable on Google News earlier. Also, I don't think her view is notable enough to be included. Malkin isn't a reliable source for anything other than her own opinion; in order to establish that her opinion is noteworthy, we'd need a source beyond her own writing.--Cúchullain t/c 14:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The Double-Tongued Dictionary is clearly reliable. Its author is an established lexicographer who has edited various dictionaries including one published by Oxford University. He also holds offices in the Dictionary Society of North America, and is on the editorial board of its journal. The site itself has won a DSNA lexicography award, and has been cited in scholarly books and papers.[10][11][12][13]--Cúchullain t/c 14:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
I would prefer to be too liberal/permissive (rather than unduly restrictive) regarding whose views are considered notable enough for this article. Malkin is presumably respected (?) on this subject as much as Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck — at least as far as their fans/followers are concerned. I'll concede that any mention of Malkin's own child-of-immigrants origin should be removed until/unless a third-party reliable source is found discussing the relationship (if any) of this issue to her views. Richwales (talk · contribs) 22:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
That's just it - we don't want the article to become a coatrack of quotes from all commentors who have ever spoken about "anchor babies", be it Limbaugh, Beck, or whoever. We need to include only those views that are truly noteworthy, and we determine that with secondary sources, not our own guesses about the speaker. For instance, this PolitiFact article establishes that Glenn Beck's statements on the subject may be notable, in that they have been noted (and ripped apart) in the media. We'd need something like that to show that Malkin's statements are notable.--Cúchullain t/c 23:28, 28 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)

As one specific, this source, introduced by Richmondian himself, specifically says the immigration benefits of having a US-born child are "limited" and says there's little to support the claim that immigrants having children in the country are doing so for citizenship. However, Richmondian's edit removes that sourced material and inserts the claim that anchor babies "can facilitate immigration and receipt of various other benefits for relatives", without any source whatsoever.--Cúchullain t/c 23:54, 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)

Sorry, the source says the benefits are "limited". Your personal opinion that they are "numerous" is meaningless. Again, your edit added no source to support your claim, which ran totally counter to the reliable source you removed without comment. You were right in some of your removals, but that doesn't justify removing well-sourced material or introducing unsourced POV.Cúchullain t/c 00:18, 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)

Nice try. "Limited" is sourced to a reliable publication *you* introduced. "Numerous" is your personal opinion and irrelevant here. What we can do is explain what the benefits are, in accordance with the source, but to maintain the source's interpretation of it. And NumbersUSA, whose catchphrase is "For Lower Immigration Levels", is a lobbying organization, not nearly as reliable as the St. Petersburg Times.--Cúchullain t/c 12:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anchor_baby/Archive_4&oldid=1069857699"