As someone who was born in the United States to immigrant parents, I find the phrase “anchor babies” [used by] . . . Republican candidates to describe American-born children of immigrants—incredibly offensive. It’s shameful how the GOP field has perpetuated the ugly myth of a swarm of Mexican women crossing the border to have their children in this country and manipulate the immigration system. . . . The reality is that American-born babies, who are U.S. citizens, cannot petition for their parents to gain legal immigration status until they are 21 years old. The “anchor baby” narrative is politics at its worst . . . tapping into an implicit racial sentiment. . . . It accomplishes nothing other than stocking the unwarranted fear that too many Americans continue to hold about our country’s changing demographics. When It Comes to the Politics of Immigration, the GOP Candidates Are . . . Shameless, Rep. Linda Sanchez, The Washington Post, 8/25/15.
Fact Check: Mass immigration supporters seem to believe that any criticism of their position is “incredibly offensive.” This is why they try to ban use of the term “illegal alien,” a perfectly accurate description of foreigners (aliens) who break our immigration laws. They try to substitute other terms, such as “undocumented” or “immigrant,” as Sanchez does. The latter use is truly offensive because it equates foreigners who obey our immigration laws with those who break them. Legal immigrants have every right to resent this usage.
As for “anchor baby,” there is nothing inherently derogatory or racial about this term. It merely affirms that a child born to illegal alien parents, as citizens can serve as a means for them (an anchor) to stay. Sanchez tries to minimize this reality by stating that the child can’t petition for the parents to become legal residents until he or she is 21. But this is only one facet of how the anchor works. As a practical matter of long standing, illegal aliens with citizen children under 21 are usually not deported. And policies set by the Obama Administration have made their deportation more difficult than ever.
The anchor also fastens illegal aliens and their children to our welfare state. As citizens, the children of illegal aliens are eligible for all welfare programs. Technically, the parents can’t get public assistance, but certainly they benefit as their children get benefits. Thus because of this “anchor,” native-born American citizens are forced to subsidize lawbreaking.
The whole problem goes back to our policy of granting automatic citizenship to anyone born on American soil. Sanchez and other illegal alien advocates claim that the 14th Amendment requires this policy. Actually it doesn’t, as affirmed by the intent of its authors and subsequent Supreme Court rulings.
According to Sanchez, concern about changing demographics is “unwarranted.” One must notice, however, that it is changing in favor Hispanics, Sanchez’s group. Could she casting the race card at her opponents to divert attention away from her own ethnic and racial agendas? Some Hispanics who condone or justify illegal immigration give the impression that the rule of law should be suspended to to help empower their group at the expense of everyone else.
A good example is Luis Gutierrez (D-IL) the leading advocate of amnesty and other benefits for illegal aliens in the House. He once stated that he had “one loyalty only” and that was to “the immigrant community.” This kind of supremacism, without a doubt, is incredibly offensive.