Thread: The Dehumanizing Term "Anchor Baby" {Alipac Menti

But you don't have blanket anchor babies occuring day in and day out and having the taxpayers continue to foot the bill. They come in from Mexico, Guatemala, Salvador, and have them in this country. It's a huge impact on California hospitals, Arizona hospitals, New Mexico hospitals, and Texas hospitals.

I seriously suggest this person visit the maternity ward of any larger hospital and see the women giving birth to their fourth or fifth anchor baby. And ask them how many are here legally or illegally?
And Kyle Hussein de Beausset

May I ask what heritage that is from as it seems the name is Irish (Kyle) Arabic (Hussein) French (de Beausset)?
Anchor baby is a term protected under freedom of speech, as is yours to criticize the term. Unfortunately, your article sounds fairly anti-American toward the heritage that built up this country by doing all the jobs that we are now told we won't do.

Five times he uses the term "anchor baby" with dehumanizing phrases like "say no to the anchor baby". An "anchor baby", for those of you that don't know, is a child born of migrants in the U.S. who, through the 14 amendment of the U.S. constitution, is automatically a U.S. citizen.

WRONG. AN "ANCHOR BABY" IS A CHILD BORN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE IN THE U.S ILLEGALLY. THEREFORE THAT BABY IS NOT A CITIZEN. This writer is misinterpreting the 14th amendment the same way all pro-illegals do.

80% DON'T CARE - CRY US A RIVER - AND THOSE 20% THAT DO CARE THEY CAN SPONSOR SOME OF THE 40,000,000 WITH ALL THEIR EARNINGS AND ASSETS. THEN LET'S SEE HOW LONG THE 20% REMAINS SO GIVING TO THESE ILLEGALS AND ILLEGAL BABIES WITH ANCHORS.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Next week there is the 550,000 visas that Congress is trying to push onto us.
So Monday I guess ALIPACers and other groups be to spread the word and get busy once again stopping the passage of the bill.

Good points everyone. I'd like to point out one more, if you don't mind:

He says the correctly-defining words "anchor baby" are 'dehumanizing.'

Yet he fails to mention how those illegal alien parents dehumanize themselves by allowing coyotes to abuse them on their illegal way to be here illegally. He doesn't bring up how some illegal alien parents dehumanize their own children by selling them to brothels. He doesn't talk about the illegal aliens dehumanizing themselves by participating in gang shoot-outs, raping American women and children, and their gimme-gimme syndrome.

</soapbox>

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

I grow weary of these minor blogger wanna bees taking little cat scratch swipes at me. I want some big guns blazing my way.

Time to get the fires stirred up again I suppose.

W

Well be sure to tell him about all the illegals that using their anchors social security number to get a job. Sounds like the baby is anchoring their parents here to me.

Originally Posted by Bowman

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

I grow weary of these minor blogger wanna bees taking little cat scratch swipes at me. I want some big guns blazing my way.

Time to get the fires stirred up again I suppose.

W

Well be sure to tell him about all the illegals that using their anchors social security number to get a job. Sounds like the baby is anchoring their parents here to me.

Ditto Bowman!

Originally Posted by butterbean

Five times he uses the term "anchor baby" with dehumanizing phrases like "say no to the anchor baby". An "anchor baby", for those of you that don't know, is a child born of migrants in the U.S. who, through the 14 amendment of the U.S. constitution, is automatically a U.S. citizen.

WRONG. AN "ANCHOR BABY" IS A CHILD BORN OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE IN THE U.S ILLEGALLY. THEREFORE THAT BABY IS NOT A CITIZEN. This writer is misinterpreting the 14th amendment the same way all pro-illegals do.

Actually, allowing birth right citizenship to the children of anyone who is not a citizen is the same misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. Birthright citizenship is something that properly belongs to the offspring of parents who are both US citizens. Citizenship is the missing key in many of these debates on illegal immigration, not just illegality.

Originally Posted by 4Bear

Actually, allowing birth right citizenship to the children of anyone who is not a citizen is the same misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. Birthright citizenship is something that properly belongs to the offspring of parents who are both US citizens. Citizenship is the missing key in many of these debates on illegal immigration, not just illegality.

That may be, but in 1898 the Supreme Court ruled that the US born children of legal immigrants are US citizens. And generally, legal immigrants don't need an anchor baby to stay here, while to some extent an anchor baby does help illegal aliens stay.

Originally Posted by Bowman

Originally Posted by 4Bear

Actually, allowing birth right citizenship to the children of anyone who is not a citizen is the same misinterpretation of the 14th amendment. Birthright citizenship is something that properly belongs to the offspring of parents who are both US citizens. Citizenship is the missing key in many of these debates on illegal immigration, not just illegality.

That may be, but in 1898 the Supreme Court ruled that the US born children of legal immigrants are US citizens. And generally, legal immigrants don't need an anchor baby to stay here, while to some extent an anchor baby does help illegal aliens stay.

It remains. Birthright citizenship is something properly, constitutionally to be restricted to parents who are US citizens only. If the 1898 decision applies to non-citizens, it can also apply to illegal immigrants.

"Right of blood" was what was recognized by the Founders. Jus Soli "right of soil" was a hated concept. It was King George and jus soli that said, simply by the fact you are "standing" (born) on his soil, you OWED him allegiance. The founders didn't see it that way. They fought against that concept. Accepting jus soli would be tantamount to defeating the Nazis and then instituting the Nazi Party in the U.S.

If there was a question of loyality, the child always assumed the Nationality of his father. There were British citizens who had children born in the colonies and they retained their citizenship. There is NOTHING in the Constitution that specifically addresses children of illegal aliens and it's easily proven that the 14th Amendment NEVER gave those rights.

The famous case, which everyone points to concerning automatic citizenship, involved the child of LEGAL aliens. When you have people from all over the world coming here just to have their children, like South Korea, they can avoid military service in their own country and have all the rights of an American at any given time, anywhere. It's as dumb and idiotic as it's twin concept, wet-foot, dry-foot policy!

BREAK IN THE COUNTRY...HAVE A CHILD...YOU'RE A WINNER! Citizenship for your child, a monthly check, free health care, housing and utility assistance, free food and a host of other helpful delights. ALL YOURS, just for managing to get your feet over the border line. AND, as an added benefit, there are thousands of organizations, screaming, demanding, lobbying and marching up and down the street, trying to get you even more stuff, such as a credit cards, home loans, cars.....OH, sorry already got most of those.......er, AMNESTY, that's right, a free pass for ALL the family and every distant relative imaginable and all you have to do is SHOW UP and SIGN UP! AMERICANS ARE SOOO STUPID!