Anchor baby: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia


Article Images

Line 1:

{{for|the 2010 film|Anchor Baby (film)}}

{{pp-pc1}}

'''''Anchor baby''''' is a [[pejorative]]<ref name="Chavez2013">{{cite book|last=Chavez|first=Leo|title=The Latino Threat: Constructing Immigrants, Citizens, and the Nation, Second Edition|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=-CTlKu6In3cC&pg=PA203|accessdate=21 August 2015|date=2013-04-17|publisher=Stanford University Press|isbn=9780804786188|pages=203–}}</ref><ref name="GallagherLippard2014">{{cite book|last1=Gallagher|first1=Charles A.|last2=Lippard|first2=Cameron D.|title=Race and Racism in the United States: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic: An Encyclopedia of the American Mosaic|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=GQlvBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA50|accessdate=21 August 2015|date=2014-06-24|publisher=ABC-CLIO|isbn=9781440803468|pages=50–}}</ref> term for a child born in the U.S. to a foreign national mother who is not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.<ref name="oxforddic">{{cite encyclopedia |title=Anchor Baby |encyclopedia=Oxford Dictionary |url=http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/anchor-baby |date=1 November 2009}}</ref> The term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen under ''[[jus soli]]'' and the rights guaranteed in the 14th Amendment and can thus act as a sponsor for other family members.<ref name="weekinreview">{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/weekinreview/24barrett.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss |title=Buzzwords: Glossary|date= December 24, 2006 |first=Grant|last=Barrett|authorlink=Grant Barrett|work= [[New York Times]] |quote='''anchor baby:''' a derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant. Since these children automatically qualify as American citizens, they can later act as a sponsor for other family members.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2006/08/sinking_anchor_.html |title=Sinking 'Anchor Babies|date= August 18, 2006|first=Eric|last=Zorn|authorlink= Eric Zorn|work= [[Chicago Tribune]] |quote='They use it to spark resentment against immigrants,' Rivlin said of his ideological foes. 'They use it to make these children sound non-human.' To me, that's good enough reason to regret having used it and to decide not to use it in the future.}}</ref> The term is also often used in the context of the debate over [[illegal immigration to the United States]] to refer to children of illegal immigrants, but may be used for the child of any immigrant.<ref name="doubletongue">{{cite web|url=http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/anchor_baby/ |title=anchor baby|work=Double Tongued Dictionary |quote= '''Anchor baby:''' ''n.'' 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. Also '''anchor child''', a very young immigrant who will later sponsor citizenship for family members who are still abroad.}}</ref> A similar term, "passport baby", has been used in Canada for children born through so-called "maternity" or "[[birth tourism]]".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/05/passport-babies-canada/ |title=Tory crackdown on 'birth tourists' will eliminate Canadian passport babies |publisher=National Post |date= |accessdate=2013-11-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/birth-tourism-may-change-citizenship-rules-1.1164914 |title='Birth tourism' may change citizenship rules |publisher=[[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC News]] |date=2012-03-05 |accessdate=2013-11-20 |first=Prithi |last=Yelaja}}</ref>

The term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen under ''[[jus soli]]'' and can later act as a sponsor for other family members.<ref name="weekinreview">{{cite news|url=http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/24/weekinreview/24barrett.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss |title=Buzzwords: Glossary|date= December 24, 2006 |first=Grant|last=Barrett|authorlink=Grant Barrett|work= [[New York Times]] |quote='''anchor baby:''' a derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant. Since these children automatically qualify as American citizens, they can later act as a sponsor for other family members.}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2006/08/sinking_anchor_.html |title=Sinking 'Anchor Babies|date= August 18, 2006|first=Eric|last=Zorn|authorlink= Eric Zorn|work= [[Chicago Tribune]] |quote='They use it to spark resentment against immigrants,' Rivlin said of his ideological foes. 'They use it to make these children sound non-human.' To me, that's good enough reason to regret having used it and to decide not to use it in the future.}}</ref> The term is also often used in the context of the debate over [[illegal immigration to the United States]] to refer to children of illegal immigrants, but may be used for the child of any immigrant.<ref name="doubletongue">{{cite web|url=http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/anchor_baby/ |title=anchor baby|work=Double Tongued Dictionary |quote= '''Anchor baby:''' ''n.'' 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. Also '''anchor child''', a very young immigrant who will later sponsor citizenship for family members who are still abroad.}}</ref> A similar term, "passport baby", has been used in Canada for children born through so-called "maternity" or "[[birth tourism]]".<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/03/05/passport-babies-canada/ |title=Tory crackdown on 'birth tourists' will eliminate Canadian passport babies |publisher=National Post |date= |accessdate=2013-11-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/birth-tourism-may-change-citizenship-rules-1.1164914 |title='Birth tourism' may change citizenship rules |publisher=[[Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|CBC News]] |date=2012-03-05 |accessdate=2013-11-20 |first=Prithi |last=Yelaja}}</ref>

There is a popular misconception that the child's U.S. citizenship status legally helps the child's parents and siblings to quickly reclassify their visa status (or lack thereof) and to place them on a fast pathway to acquire lawful [[permanent residence (United States)|permanent residence]] and eventually [[Citizenship in the United States|United States citizenship]].<ref name=ahd>{{cite web |url= http://ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=anchor+baby |title= Anchor baby|author= |year= 2011 |work= ahdictionary.com|publisher= [[American Heritage Dictionary]] |access-date=August 16, 2015}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Kathleen R Arnold|title=Anti-Immigration in the United States: A Historical Encyclopedia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=nS12bSVKgmoC&pg=PA18&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=anchor%20baby&f=false|year= 2011|publisher=ABC-CLIO|pages=18–20|access-date=August 16, 2015}}</ref> Current [[Law of the United States|U.S. federal law]] prevents anyone under the age of 21 from being able to [[petition]] for their non-citizen parent to be lawfully admitted into the United States for permanent residence. At best, the child's family would need to wait for 21 years before being able to use their child's US citizenship to modify their immigration status, and is thus, unhelpful for immigration purposes.<ref name="statedeptfamily">{{cite web|url=http://travel.state.gov/content/visas/english/immigrate/family/family-preference.html|title=Family-based Immigrant Visas|publisher=U.S. Department of State|quote=U.S. citizens must be age 21 or older to file petitions for siblings or parents.|access-date=August 16, 2015}}</ref>

==History and usage==

A related term, "anchor child", referring in this case to "very young immigrants who will later sponsor immigration for family members who are still abroad", was used in reference to [[Vietnam]]ese [[boat people]] from about 1987.<ref name="doubletongue"/><ref name="LATM">{{cite news|title=A Profile of a Lost Generation|url=http://articles.latimes.com/1987-12-13/magazine/tm-28306_1_schooling|work= Los Angeles Times Magazine|date= December 13, 1987| page =12|quote=They are “anchor children,” saddled with the extra burden of having to attain a financial foothold in America to sponsor family members who remain in Vietnam.}}</ref><ref name="TS">{{cite news|title=Sympathy for the boat people is wearing thin|first= Frances |last=Kelly|work= Toronto Star|date= June 2, 1991| page =H2|quote= Known as “anchor” children, aid workers say the youngsters are put on boats by families who hope they’ll be resettled in the United States or Canada and can then apply to have their families join them.}}</ref><ref>{{citation|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01557.x/full|title=New Media and the ‘Anchor Baby’ Boom|last=Ignatow|first=Gabe|last2=Williams|first2=Alexander|date=17 October 2011|publisher=Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication}}</ref><ref name=WOTY>{{cite web |url= http://www.americandialect.org/WOTY-noms-Barrett.pdf |title= 2006 Word of the Year Nominations |author= |date= December 24, 2006 |work= americandialect.org|publisher= [[American Dialect Society]] |accessdate=March 25, 2012}}</ref> "Anchor baby" appeared in print in 1996, but remained relatively obscure until 2006, when it found new prominence amid the increased focus on the immigration debate in the United States.<ref name="weekinreview"/><ref name="doubletongue"/><ref name=WOTY/><ref name=NYT>{{cite news |title= Anchor Baby: A Term Redefined as a Slur|author= Julia Preston |url= http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/09/us/anchor-baby-a-term-redefined-as-a-slur.html?_r=2|newspaper= [[The New York Times]] |date= December 8, 2011|accessdate=January 17, 2012}}</ref> Lexicographer [[Grant Barrett]] nominated the term for the [[American Dialect Society]]'s 2006 [[Word of the Year]].<ref name=WOTY/>

It is generally considered pejorative.<ref>{{Cite web|title = anchor baby: definition of anchor baby in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)|url = http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/anchor-baby|website = www.oxforddictionaries.com|publisher = https://plus.google.com/107831092854065394120/|accessdate = 2015-11-05}}</ref> In 2011 the ''[[American Heritage Dictionary]]'' added an entry for the term in the dictionary's new edition, which did not indicate that the term was disparaging. Following a critical blog piece by Mary Giovagnoli, the director of the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigration research group in Washington, the dictionary updated its online definition to indicate that the term is "offensive", similar to its entries on ethnic slurs.<ref name=NYT/><ref>{{cite news |title= Dictionary's definition of 'anchor baby' draws fire|author= Alan Gomez |url= http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2011/12/define-anchor-baby-american-heritage-dictionary/1|newspaper= USA Today |date= December 5, 2011|accessdate=January 17, 2012}}</ref> {{as of|2012}}, the definition reads:

<blockquote>''n. Offensive'' Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.</blockquote>

Line 18 ⟶ 17:

</blockquote>

According to the ''[[Double-Tongued Dictionary]]'', written by American [[lexicographer]] [[Grant Barrett]], the term "anchor baby" means "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 United States citizenship." In response to a reader comment, Barrett claimed that the term is used to refer to a child of ''any'' immigrant, not just children of illegal immigrants.<ref name="doubletongue_comment">{{cite web|url=http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/anchor_baby/ |title=Double Tongued Dictionary|editor=Barrett, Grant |quote= [From comments section][The term ''anchor baby''] is used for *any* immigrant. Those who use this term tend to be opposed to *all* immigration and immigrants....}}</ref>

In 2012, [[Utah]] [[State attorney general|Attorney General]] [[Mark Shurtleff]], in a meeting designed to promote the 2010 [[Utah Compact]] declaration as a model for a federal government approach to immigration, said that "The use of the word 'anchor baby' when we're talking about a child of God is offensive."<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865568109/Drafter-of-Utah-Compact-calls-document-gold-standard-for-fixing-nations-immigration-problems.html?s_cid=Email-2 | title=Drafter of Utah Compact calls document 'gold standard' for fixing nation's immigration problems | newspaper=[[Deseret News]] | date=December 4, 2012}}</ref>

===Maternity tourism industry===

{{as of|2015}}, Los Angeles is considered the center of the maternity tourism industry, which caters mostly to wealthy Asian women;<ref>http://www.kulr8.com/story/29880695/whats-behind-the-anchor-babies-buzz-phrase</ref> authorities in the city there closed 14 maternity tourism "hotels" in 2013.<ref name=Jordan/> The industry is difficult to close down since it is perfectlynot legalillegal for a pregnant woman to travel to the U.S.<ref name=Jordan/>

On March 3, 2015 Federal Agents in [[Los Angeles]] conducted a series of raids on 3 "multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses" expected to produce the "biggest federal criminal case ever against the booming 'anchor baby' industry", according to the [[Wall Street Journal]].<ref name=Jordan>{{cite news|last1=Jordan|first1=Miriam|title=Federal Agents Raid Alleged ‘Maternity Tourism’ Businesses Catering to Chinese|url=http://www.wsj.com/articles/us-agents-raid-alleged-maternity-tourism-anchor-baby-businesses-catering-to-chinese-1425404456?tesla=y|accessdate=3 March 2015|publisher=Wall Street Journal|date=3 March 2015}}</ref><ref name=Kim>{{cite news|last1=Kim|first1=Victoria|title=Alleged Chinese 'maternity tourism' operations raided in California|url=http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-birth-tourism-schemes-raids-20150303-story.html|accessdate=4 March 2015|publisher=Los Angeles Times|date=3 March 2015}}</ref>

==Immigration status==

The [[Citizenship Clause]] of the [[Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution]] indicates that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The [[Supreme Court of the United States]] affirmed in ''[[United States v. Wong Kim Ark]]'', 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent [[domicile (law)|domicile]] status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power.

As of 2015, there has been no Supreme Court decision that explicitly holds that persons born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are automatically afforded U.S. citizenship.<ref>{{cite news | first = Marc | last = Lacey | title = Birthright Citizenship Looms as Next Immigration Battle | url = http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/us/politics/05babies.html | newspaper = New York Times | date = 5 January 2011 | quote = The next big immigration battle centers on illegal immigrants' offspring, who are granted automatic citizenship like all other babies born on American soil. Arguing for an end to the policy, which is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, immigration hard-liners describe a wave of migrants like Ms. Vasquez stepping across the border in the advanced stages of pregnancy to have what are dismissively called 'anchor babies.'{{small|&nbsp;}}}}</ref><ref name="politifact" /><ref name="politifact2">{{cite web |url= http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/aug/06/do-many-illegal-immigrants-deliver-anchor-babies/ |title= Do many illegal immigrants deliver 'anchor babies'?|author= Louis Jacobson |date= August 6, 2010|work= PolitiFact.com|publisher= [[St. Petersburg Times]]|accessdate=January 17, 2012}}</ref><ref name="Ho">{{cite journal | journal=[[The Green Bag]] | volume=9 | year=2006 | pages=366–378| author=Ho, James C. | title=Defining 'American': Birthright Citizenship and the Original Understanding of the 14th Amendment | url=http://www.gibsondunn.com/publications/Documents/Ho-DefiningAmerican.pdf | accessdate=March 27, 2012 | issue=4}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title= The Columbia Documentary History of the Asian American Experience|last= Odo |first= Franklin |authorlink= Franklin Odo |year= 2002 |publisher= Columbia University Press |isbn= 0231110308 |pages= 112–114 |url= http://books.google.com/books?id=okFtdjfp9FgC&pg=PA112&dq=%22Wong+Kim+Ark%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=e9VxT_qDCs-CtgeA_9H4Dw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Wong%20Kim%20Ark%22&f=false|accessdate=}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | url=http://books.google.com/books?id=_kgZAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA556&lpg=PA556 | first=Marshall B. | last=Woodworth | journal=American Law Review | volume=32 | pages=554–561 | title=Who Are Citizens of the United States? Wong Kim Ark Case | publisher=Review Pub. Company | location=St. Louis | year=1898}}</ref> Edward Erler, writing for the [[Claremont Institute]], said that since the ''Wong Kim Ark'' case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of illegal aliens must surely be excluded.<ref>Erler et al., ''[http://books.google.com/books?id=yTA0NyesVbcC The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration: Principles and Challenges in America]'', [[Claremont Institute]] Series on Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, p. [http://books.google.com/books?id=yTA0NyesVbcC&pg=PA67 67]. "Even if the logic is that Wong Kim Ark became a citizen by birth with the permission of the United States when it admitted his parents to the country, no such permission has been given to those who enter illegally. If no one can become a citizen without the permission of the United States, then children of illegal aliens must surely be excluded from acquiring citizenship."</ref>

Statistics show that a significant, and rising, number of illegal aliens are having children in the United States, but there is mixed evidence that acquiring citizenship for the parents is their goal.<ref name=politifact/> According to PolitFact of the ''St. Petersburg Times'', the immigration benefits of having a child born in the United States are limited. Citizen children cannot sponsor parents for entry into the country until they are 21 years of age, and if the parent had ever been in the country illegally, they would have to show they had left and not returned for at least ten years; however, pregnant and nursing mothers could receive free food vouchers through the federal [[WIC]] (Women, Infants and Children) program and enroll the children in Medicaid.<ref name=politifact>{{cite web |url= http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/aug/06/lindsey-graham/illegal-immigrants-anchor-babies-birthright/|title= Fact-checking the claims about 'anchor babies' and whether illegal immigrants 'drop and leave'|author= |date= August 6, 2010|work= PolitiFact.com|publisher= [[St. Petersburg Times]] |accessdate=January 17, 2012}}</ref>

Line 61 ⟶ 62:

==Further reading==

{{Further reading cleanup}}

*{{cite news|first=Leslie |last=Berestein|date=April 2, 2006 |url=http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060402-9999-1n2tide.html |work=San Diego Union-Tribune|title=Immigration bill turned quiet voices into a roar}}