December 6, 2011 | 11:42 AM | By

Controversial ‘anchor baby’ dictionary entry redefined as ‘disparaging’

FILED UNDER: Politics/Justice, American Heritage Dictionary, American Immigration Council, Anchor babies, Anchor baby, Immigration Policy Center

Photo by jollyville/Flickr (Creative Commons)

The term “anchor baby,” used by some in reference to children of undocumented immigrants, is almost exclusively used in a negative light. Media pundits often use it when discussing or making their case against U.S. birthright citizenship, as in this exchange between Fox’s Megyn Kelly (“…and I’m not talking about my son Yates”) and Lou Dobbs, or this monologue by Glenn Beck.

But the American Heritage Dictionary recently added “anchor baby” as an entry that read as a neutral term, provoking enough criticism that the publishers agreed to modify it, with the change made online yesterday. Here’s the original entry as posted on the Immigration Impact site, a project of the American Immigration Council:

anchor baby n. A child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family.

And here’s new revised version:

anchor baby 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.

The controversy erupted last week, with the council’s Immigration Policy Center director Mary Giovagnoli criticizing the neutral entry in a post on Immigration Impact. She wrote:

The New American Heritage Dictionary acknowledges the derogatory nature of hundreds of terms. By failing to do so with the term “anchor baby,” however, the dictionary implies that the term is acceptable in common usage and misleads the public by insinuating that giving birth to a child in the United States necessarily carries with it the intention of using that child for immigration status.

In an era where politicians and pundits have no qualms about being imprecise, dictionary editors need to be—even if that means calling a term “highly charged,” “political,” or down right nasty. While dictionaries may be neutral, language isn’t. “Anchor baby” is a term that epitomizes the way words reflect and reframe a debate.

Her post last Friday drew numerous comments on the site, including from Steven Kleinedler, executive editor of the American Heritage Dictionary, who expressed that “a revision to this definition is in order.” In a post today, Giovagnoli writes:

This is the kind of controversy that doesn’t fade away quickly, and many argue that the term is so offensive that it shouldn’t appear in the dictionary at all. I understand but disagree with that position, largely because the term, however offensive, exists as a political and practical reality. I think the new definition validates what many outraged voices in blogs, on Twitter, and in the press have been saying all along: “anchor baby” is a term that shouldn’t exist but does because immigration restrictionists are really good at creating words that generate fear.

While the origins are not reflected in the definition, characterizing the term as both “offensive” and “disparaging” says volumes about how it is used in real life. I would much rather have a curious student or citizen have the ability to look up the term in the dictionary and find this definition than to find no guidance and accept the meaning and agenda of restrictionists who used it.

Aside from the negative connotations of “anchor baby,” one point long raised by those who deal in U.S. immigration law is that the end result the term implies (“…to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family,” as worded in the original entry) is technically inaccurate, as there’s no direct “anchor” provided by having a U.S. citizen child.

According to law, a U.S. citizen child of undocumented parents can’t petition the parents until turning 21. Even then, it’s complicated: The child can’t petition parents who entered illegally unless the parents leave the country. Because people who have been in the U.S. illegally for more than a year are barred from returning for 10 years, it’s unlikely the parents would be able to return legally with a green card – if approved – until their child is in his or her thirties.

Parents who illegally overstayed visas don’t need to leave the country, but the child must still be 21 to petition them, and they are subject to the same readmission bar if they do leave.*

Having U.S. citizen children also offers no protection against deportation.

In a recent Q&A on this site, a legal expert discussed the myths and difficulties surrounding obtaining legal status through marriage and family. Although people who have left the country may apply for a difficult-to-obtain hardship waiver to the readmission bar, the extreme hardship that must be proven is to a U.S. citizen or legal resident spouse, not to one’s children.

The controversy over the “anchor baby” entry has continued making headlines. Yesterday USA Today launched its own mini-poll, asking readers for their opinion and prompting an heated exchange in the comments section, as might be expected.

*Added for clarification.

  • Anonymous

     

    Fighting for your
    jobs in 50 States, by using MANDATORY E-Verify?

     

     The numbers of politicians enthusiastic by passing
    ‘THE LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT’ is rising, and now only needs 32 more of sponsors for
    its introduction to the House floor. This would have exceptional ramifications
    for the ailing job market, in rejecting illegal aliens and replacing them with
    citizens and legal diverse workers.  The numbers of politicians
    enthusiastic of passing ‘THE LEGAL WORKFORCE ACT’ is rising, and now only needs
    32 more of sponsors for its introduction to the House floor. This would have
    exceptional ramifications for the ailing job market, in rejecting illegal
    aliens and replacing them with citizens and legal decisive workers. This is not
    a pogrom against any race or nationality; it’s not a witch hunt to stop Blacks,
    Hispanics, Europeans, and Pacific Islanders, Asian or other persons. It’s about
    keeping to the law, the ‘Rule of Law’ like aiding and abetting millions of
    illegal alien from every hemisphere across the world.

     

    It’s about corruption in Washington from both parties to
    hire cheap labor and exploit it; it’s also about millions of votes in future
    years, to undermine fair and equal electoral laws. You have seen the outcome
    after the original amnesty of rampant fraud by business owners, who will be
    held liable for not implementing form I-9 and not running a electronic
    E-Verify process. E-Verify will become–MANDATORY–for every business and if
    not complying face harsh penalties. Hundreds of thousands at the Mandatory
    E-Verify enactment would promote rapid self-deportation, adding more jobs for
    Americans. Ice raids have shown in large companies, illegal migrants and
    immigrants fleeing and making room for different racial backgrounds lining up
    for those jobs.

     

    Former Speaker Newt
    Gingrich would have American taxpayers keep supporting the millions still
    unlawfully in this country? The question to ask yourself, they already
    committed an offense against our laws by crossing the borders or being an over-stay
    visa. Then to obtain a job in the U.S. other than criminal businesses not
    bothering to verify their hired work verification, they had to use fraudulent
    Social Security cards, drivers licenses, birth certificates or some other form
    of ID—isn’t this a FELONY by definition? THEN WHY IS IT NOT A FELONY? IF YOU
    STOLE SOMEBODIES ID OR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND GOT CAUGHT, YOU WOULD BE IN
    JAIL.

     

    Farmers and those giant
    agricultural factories, who hire illegal alien workers, pay nothing for the
    children’s schooling or families’ health care. YOU DO!

     

     

    Rep. John Duncan (R-Tenn.) is the
    latest cosponsored of House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith’s Legal Workforce
    Act (H.R.2885). The bill would require 100% of businesses to begin using
    E-Verify for all new hires within 2 years and require all federal, state, and
    local governments to check new hires and existing employees within 6 months to
    name a few statuary laws. Although hundreds of companies now are
    using the E-Verification hiring process, it must be made permanent. Currently
    it needs heavy action by all patriotic Americans. This can be done by the
    voter contacting Washington 202-224-3121 and giving your name, address to the
    aid and insisting your representative in the Senate-House uphold the law and
    co-sponsor H.R. 2885. E-Verify will also be beneficial in National
    Security?  Don’t hesitate! Perform it
    now, as not only are thousands of jobs vanishing overseas, because of the
    stalemate in Congress, but people are still crossing borders or staying after
    their visa is expired. Don’t be fooled by the lies from the Leftists, who are
    concentrating with their lies that moderates are seeking all ethnic majorities
    be deported. Don’t listen to their lies that illegal aliens pay for their own
    financial support, that the majority pay taxes. Most states are in a terrible
    mess, specifically Sanctuary states like California, Nevada and flooded with
    foreigners, feeding of the crippled welfare system.

     

    Rep. Duncan represents
    Tennessee’s 2nd Congressional District and is serving his 13th term in
    Congress. He has earned a career A-plus grade and has also cosponsored Rep.
    Steve King’s bill to end Birthright Citizenship and Rep. Marsha Blackburn’s
    bill to strengthen interior enforcement. Pregnant Mothers from other countries
    in numbers unsustainable of 300 thousand annually, which taxpayers are forced
    to outlay. NumbersUSA website—is another way to communicate your demand for
    following the 1986 Immigration laws, be obliged to be held accountable for
    illegal hiring. Only the TEA PARTY, the American people of all party
    denominations, from every walk of life, wants an end to this growing deficit
    crisis. Illegal Immigration is fiscally hurting Arizona, Alabama, South
    Carolina, Utah, Indiana and all the rest of the 50 states, which are being
    drained in billions of dollars in federal non-funded mandates. Unless millions
    of patriotic Americans start communicating their fears, the worst is just
    across the horizon. We must build the–REAL–double fencing across the lower
    United States. We must enact the MANDATORY ‘Legal Workforce Act” Now.

     

    I hear there is a reduction of
    illegal aliens entering illegally, but what about the real estimate of 20
    million plus already squatting here. They say it costs 120 million dollars to
    capture illegal aliens, so have we already the cost to states and the federal
    government revenue payout to subsidize illegal immigrants? How about a nice
    round figure of 100 Billion dollars? Most don’t pay taxes; those who come here
    quickly find a way to screw the welfare safety net. The most expensive portion
    of the social welfare system is Mothers with babies, known by the term ‘Anchor
    Babies’ or ‘Foothold Babies’ who immediately get public aid and states carry
    the costs. It is a very clever, intentional act to smuggle a unborn baby into
    America by jet or through the mostly unguarded regions of the border.

  • Anonymous

    Stop demanding and consuming the goods and services produced by illegal
    aliens and/or increase the number of immigration visas for the workers that come/stay here illegally to produce the goods and services that we demand and consume. Doing either or both would be much cheaper and would avoid the massive intrusive collection of personal data now included in the most recent version of HR 2885, The bill needlessly expands government control over businesses and individuals at all levels of the economy. Conservatives and liberals alike who believe in maintaining at least some degree of privacy in the face of government-mandated databases and efforts to force employers to obtain Uncle Sam’s permission before hiring someone should strongly oppose this legislation.

  • Jdmontag

    Actually, the criticism that the parent of an “anchor baby” must leave the country is partially incorrect. If the parent entered the country with inspection, such as with a visa, and then overstayed, as have approximately half of the undocumented in the United States, the parent does not have to leave the United States to become a permanent resident. The process of adjustment of status is available to a parent, spouse, or child of a United States citizen (referred to as “immediate relatives”) as long as there was an admission or parole into the United States regardless of whether the parent, spouse, or child is currently in a lawful status. See INA § 245(c).  http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-7406.html

    It is definitely true that the “anchor baby”cannot petition for a parent until the child turns 21, which means the “anchor parent” must be an exceptionally long-range planner. It is also true that if the parent departs the United States after having been here for a year or longer, the parent cannot come back for ten years without obtaining a waiver based on extreme hardship to the parent’s U.S. citizen or permanent resident spouse or parent, unlikely relationships for an “anchor parent.”

  • Lberesteinrojas

    Good point, Jonathan. Thanks. I should have made clear that the need to leave applies to those who entered without visas. I’ll clarify.

  • Anonymous

    It’s certainly true that the term is largely used to disparage the reality of what granting citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants means. That those with pro-illegal immigration agendas find it offensive that they can’t control how that reality is described by others isn’t surprising. It doesn’t make it any less true that those jus soli children are used to argue against enforcement on their illegal immigrant parents, as well as being a pathway to taxpayer-provided benefits, and as a reason to grant amnesty to the parents. This is true regardless of the intent of the parents that existed around having their children.

    This blog just recently published a document obtained by the National Day Labor Organizing Network that listed “has an immediate family member who is a United States citizen” a cause for “prosecutorial discretion.”