?

This article was horribly unbalanced (and I tried to fix it a bit). The original article didn't reflect the fact that the term "anchor baby" is deeply offensive to many. A couple of points to consider.

1. The term is used in an exclusively derogatory way by one side of a contentious political debate.

2. It is hard to imagine the term being used as anything other than a slur. Do you think a mother would call her daughter "my anchor baby"? Can you imagine using this term to describe a co-worker?

There is also a problem with the description of the core idea of the 14th amendment as a "loophole" which clearly reflects a political bias.

Inaccurate Statement

This is inaccurate: "While a parent of a US born baby can apply for citizenship, I believe that, legally, the parents do not get any automatic claims of citizenship upon the birth of their child in the US. There may be an advantage upon applying for citizenship, but until that porcess is done, the parents are still illegal and subject to deportation. I think seperate points on the perception of the people who use this term, the probably mistaken beliefs of the immigrants who try this, and the actual legal status of anchor baby parents needs to be clarified" 00:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)Cuvtixo

Wow.... A post dated November 2006, followed by responses dated before it... Please don't edit up discussion pages. We don't even know what this original discussion was even about anymore.24.15.222.166 08:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As a matter of historic legal precedent, an alien entering any foreign country subjects himself to the jurisdiction of that country, unless exempted by war or treaty. In application, a modern sovereign state has jurisdiction over all foreigners within its territory except foreign heads of state, diplomats and other high-level government figures."

The United States always considered children born in the western territories as alien children still under the jurisdiction of their native country and not the United States. When a visitor arrives to any of the states he/she is under no binding jurisdiction of that state and is free to return home at any time he/she chooses. Only time you can say anyone is remotely under the jurisdiction of a state or federal government is when he or she violates a law and is brought under the jurisdiction of a court having jurisdiction by a process of law. Quoting PA Madison here: "The only recognized means for non-Americans to come under US jurisdiction for purposes of citizenship under the US Constitution is through the process of naturalization, which requires an oath of allegiance to the United States."

This statement is a nearly direct quote from a Supreme Court ruling, and is highly accurate as a statement of historical fact and current implementation. Perhaps, there is confusion over the term jurisdicition? There are different types and extents of jurisdiction. In reference to a state's authority to arrest and punish criminals, or provide civil services, being inside it's boundaries is all the jurisdiction it needs. This is referred to in Plyler vs. Doe. For example, even foreign diplomats can be issued traffic citations, and charged with capitol crimes such as murder. However, their children are not considered within the jurisdicition of the United States, in terms of their citizenship. Also, in future, please sign your posts to the discussion page.Magic pumpkin 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statement is the entirely correct as per United States v. Wong Kim Ark.

Who is PA Madison? What are his/her credentials and expertise? Do you have reliable secondary sources for your statement, or is it original research on the part of PA Madison.

[Paul Madison is a former research specialists and Supreme Court archivists with the Library of Congress. CompuServe law forum years ago did a piece on him and showed a picture of him with the late Warren Burger. He is real.]--LawPro 19:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In short, the United States Supreme Court trumps PA Madison, whoever that individual happens to be. Brimba 14:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"PA Madison" is the driving force behind the "Federalist Blog" (http://federalistblog.us) — not exactly what I would classify as an objective repository of mainstream legal analysis. Richwales 16:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Independent of his/her blog, who is this person? If Antonin Scalia, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or Laurence Tribe maintained a blog, then the blog and its arguments would hold some weight. But who is this person? -beyond being a blogger. Brimba 17:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good question. I have no idea. I've tried looking up "P. A. Madison" in Google, but I couldn't find anything other than references back to the blog and some third-party references to him/her as either a "Constitutional scholar" or "someone named PA Madison" (seemingly depending on whether another writer happened to agree with him/her or not). I don't even see any reason to assume that this is his/her real name. I certainly can't find any reason to treat him/her as any sort of authority worthy of being cited as a primary source. Richwales 19:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the statement is entirely correct then why did federal statutes make a distinction between an alien within the limits of the United States and an alien under the jurisdiction of the same? Also, wasn't the 14th's citizenship clause a virtue of "national law" and not "common law" as the Kim Ark court mistakenly believed? I think Madison and others have demonstrated beyond a doubt that the citizenship clause was simply declaratory of national law which was only persons born to parents owing no foreign allegiance to another country were US citizens.

The legislative history and text eventually trumps and rules over the Supreme Court...this how bad Supreme Court rulings of the past finally get corrected over time. If this wasn't true we still be living under Dred Scott jurisprudence.

You know, writings of J. Madison, T. Jefferson, C. Thomas, et. al, are not considered by liberals as objective "mainstream legal analysis" anymore. Only thing considered objective anymore is what 5 liberal activists justices say is mainstream :-)

Legal Terms

Do you want to add something regarding the Fourteenth Amendment: Section One, which pertains to this subject legally?

Merger

I propose a merger between anchor baby and jackpot baby.

I am merging Jackpot baby here (and not the other way around) because anchor baby gets more google hits.

From Jackpot baby

Removal of "Xenophobia"

I just feel that the link to Xenophobia has little or nothing to do with this article, and seems biased. Although the term jackpot baby is a moniker used by U.S. media personalities, this does not suggest that these "media personalities" suffer from Xenophobia in any way, shape, or form. (The link was removed March, 26th, 2006)

Anchor baby

This term appears to be a synonym of "anchor baby", which is the more common term, I believe. Is there any reasons we should not merge them? Are the terms so different we can't handle them together? -Will Beback 08:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

Good point. I propose a merger between anchor baby and jackpot baby.

I agree. The same definition applies to both, and there's no sense in trying to maintain two pages with the same basic content. I would use "anchor baby" as the main term, if one has to be chosen, and have "jackpot baby" refer to it.

Legal Terms Added

I added some information about the Fourteenth Amendment, and some information about currently proposed legislation. I also tried to clean as much bias as possible out of the definition. The previous one was simply too opinionated, and read as though written by someone who hated the term. I must say, I had always thought that everyone born in the US was an automatic citizen, until I researched this. I could find no Act of Congress which actually grants citizenship to the domestically born children of foreign nationals. As near as I can tell, someone, somewhere just decided it was so, and it became common sense. (May 1st, 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.222.166 (talk • contribs) .

Please don't add novel legal interpretations based on your own reading of the Constitution and case law. As it happens, the practice of giving citizenship to the native-born children of foreign nations is part of the common law and has been recognized since beofer the 14th amendment.

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African, or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.[1]

And so on. -Will Beback 00:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out that in both Elk v. Wilkins, and Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court reviewed the historical precedent (pre-Constitution and pre-14th Amendment), and found that both jus sangui and jus soli were practiced in the different jurisdictions, without any particular uniformity. Jus soli was more common, but its applications to foreigners was varied. For example, some jurisdictions didn't recognize the children of visitors, while others did. Magic pumpkin 21:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pejorative

An editor changed the adjective describing the term "anchor baby" from "pejorative" to "colloquial" with the edit summary "in no way is it intended to be pejorative". I beg to differ. The term is only used by immigration restrictionists, immigration reductionists, and racists to label the children of "illegal" immigrants. The use of the term is pejorative in that it presumes that children born to these immigrants are born specifically and only for the purpose of "anchoring" the family in the U.S. This supposition is offensive to the children and the families they are born into because it assumes that the children are being birthed for financial gain and doesn't take into consideration a wide range of other factors that bring about children. The term may be colloquial, but it is also highly offensive, and denigrates the children and their parents.--Rockero 20:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The only use I've ever seen is derogatory. I don't know how we can judge the intended usage- we have to rely on the actual usage. -Will Beback 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term is often used in presentations, papers, and news articles. However, I do agree that it can be used in a derogatory manner; although, that honor, it seems, is more often reserved for Jackpot Baby. I think the best solotion is to leave it adjective-less, with reference to its sometimes offensive character. Since we have merged Jackpot Baby with this article, the term should be mentioned. As to the history of these terms, do we really know from where they originated? Magic pumpkin 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a term is used as derogatory by some or many people does not make it so. Often times people are refered to as conservativeor as liberal... often as talk show hosts, reporters and activists, not just politicans. Both times it is as a way to place insult to the person it is refering to (liberal judges, conservative radio host). But these are not prejorative. Likewise, the term "anchor" is a descriptive term meant to describe the situation, not what a mother would call their own child. So, when somebody like myself uses anchor baby, it is to place a desciption that explains the real occurance (there, you now have seen the term used without hate or prejuduce). So I say we should remove the adjective "prejorative" or add a second sentance stating the some or many people believe the term to be so. Otherwise we would have most adjectives that might be offensive like "fat", "liberal", "christian", "powerful" and and race aimed descriptor. 68.48.174.136 14:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wong Kim Ark

Wikipedia already has a nice definition for Wong Kim Ark (WKA). For purposes of being concise, this section was shortened to include only the immediatley applicable facts of WKA. Specifically, I am refering to Paragraphs 2, "Wong Kim Ark was born in", through 4 (exclusive), "There have been several subsequent". Paragraph 3 mostly contained snippets from the decision; however, containing random snippets, cited out of context, is befitting of an AP news wire, not a proper definition. More importantly, these snippets were either moot, not part of the actual opinion (although cited as such), or cited with improper context. The first, was the opinion of the the Collector of Customs, which was overturned. The second quotation was NOT the opinion of the court. It was a fact presented to the court, which both parties (plaintif and defendant) were in agreement to, and restated in the sumary of the ruling. The third was indeed part of Section V of the opinion, but it's context is as a hypothesis, not a conclusion.

Also, in paragraph I, the phrase, "the Supreme Court extended U.S. jurisdiction to include all aliens", was incorrect. The decision in WKA is only applied to the children of aliens who are amicably within the US with the permission of the US, as indicated by the conclusions of the High Court:

The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. -The finding in Section II of the ruling.

Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. -The finding in Section VI of the ruling.

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. -The Order of the Court.

One might even say that the Court's opinion is exclusive of persons born within the US to those without permission to be in it. But at the present time, that would be argumentative. The only correct statement that can be made, is that the Court's decision only applies to aliens legally residing within the territory of the US.

This is perhaps a winded part of the discussion, but the topic is sensitive, and we should be as factual as possible.Magic pumpkin 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the majority opinion in Plyler v. Doe, and in particular, see footnote 10 of the majority opinion, in which Wong Kim Ark is cited to support the concept that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is used in a "predominantly geographic sense". Plyler v. Doe upheld the right to a public education of children who were illegal immigrants (not "anchor babies"), and it's hard for me to see how Wong Kim Ark could be used, even in passing, to support such a right if that phrase applied only to people legally in the US. While it is true that Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal immigrants, I think it's speculative to assume that a case involving an "anchor baby" born to illegal immigrants would obviously be distinguished from Wong Kim Ark on this basis. Richwales 06:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-)jurisdiction and criminal activity by US-born children of illegal aliens

Is anyone aware of any legal basis whereby a US-born child of illegal aliens might be deemed not to be subject to US jurisdiction for purposes of the 14th Amendment's citizenship clause (and thus not a US citizen) — and yet would be deemed to be subject to US jurisdiction for purposes of criminal prosecution if he/she were to be accused of committing a crime later on? It seems to me that such a person could end up being immune to prosecution (for exactly the same reasons that foreign diplomats have diplomatic immunity). I really doubt this is what the people pushing for limits on "anchor baby" citizenship would want. Richwales 04:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Diplomatic Immunity" is pretty much a Hollywood creation. Foreign diplomats may be issued traffic citations, interviewed for investigations of capitol crimes, and may be charged with capitol crimes, such as murder. There are multiple types of jurisdiciton. For purposes of arrest and trial, being within a country's borders is enough. Plyler v. Doe established that, for purposes of providing civil services, being within a state's borders is enough. However, for purposes of citizenship, simply being within the country is NOT enough. This is outlined in both Elk v. Wilkins and Wong Kim Ark. Both of these rulings recognize that jurisdiction, in terms of citizenship, is a two-way street. Not only does the country need to recognize the parents as part of its society, but the parents must subject themselves to the authority of the country. Magic pumpkin 21:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful" , a direct quote from the Plyler v. Doe majority opinion (see Plyler v. Doe article for citation info). The only mention of "jurisdiction" in the Fourteenth Amendment occurs in the citizenship clause; therefore this sentence in conjunction with WKA can only be read as bestowing Fourteenth Amendment citizenship rights on the children of all immigrants legal or illegal (except for diplomats and enemy armies). Grover cleveland 21:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It amazes me at how a single footnote in Plyler v. Doe is taken out of context to support arguments of jurisdiction which pertain to citizenship. The footnote references Justice Gray's review of Jus Soli and jurisdiction, in which he concludes that being within the territory is equivalent to being within the jurisdiction. This was necessary because the State of Texas asserted that illegal aliens were not within its jurisdiction, for the purposes of "equal protection" and "due process", as stated in the phrase which referenced the footnote. In appellants' view, persons who have entered the United States illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within a State's boundaries and subject to its laws. Neither our cases nor the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment supports that constricting construction of the phrase "within its jurisdiction." A footnote is a reference, and in this case, Plyler v. Doe only references a discussion in Wong Kim Ark, and does not add to or alter that discussion on citizenship.

Further more, Plyler v. Doe was only about "equal protection" and "due process". To conclude that Plyler v. Doe somehow recognizes the US born children of illegal aliens as being natural citizens goes beyond the fundamentals of Law. As Chief Justice Marshal stated, It is a maxim, not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision. What this means, is that when jurisdicition is discussed in Plyler v. Doe, it is discussed as it pertains to "equal protection", not citizenship. Wong Kim Ark and Elk v. Wilkins still stand as the predominant Supreme Court rulings on citizenship. Within Justice Gray's referenced discussion from WKA, for the purposes of citizenship, he does briefly touch on the principle of allegiance as being an important factor in determining citizenship. Plyler v. Doe does nothing to contradict this. Moreover, Plyler v. Doe really does nothing for the topic of jurisdicition in general, as it only references the previous works, and developes no new logic. It only re-affirms the concept that a person within the boundaries of a state is subject to the laws of that state.

BTW, it is my opinion that the State of Texas simply used the wrong arguments to support its education funding legislation. After PvD, many states granted unconstrained access to the public schools only to citizens, with a vetting process which required non-citizens to petition the local school districts for admission to the local schools. It is rare for non-citizens to be denied admission to a public school, but it does happen, usually if the district has reason to believe the prospective student will not attend the school regularly, lacks the fascilities to make proper use of the school, or may only attend a fraction of the school year. Magic pumpkin 01:36, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that this isn't an opinion forum. We're just here to discuss the article, not the topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Will Beback (talk • contribs) 03:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Anchor baby/PRUCOL

I recommend that this article's name be changed to Anchor baby/PRUCOL as some people consider 'Anchor baby' to be pejorative, though it is the name must people are familiar with and, so, should not be removed. I also recommend that redirects from PRUCOL and 'Anchor baby' be created and pointed to the new article.71.74.209.82 20:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC) Also that all content in the 14th Amendment of the United States article on the topic of the citizenship of illegal immigrants born in the USA be merged with this article as well.71.74.209.82 21:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article should retain its current name without additions. Just because some consider it perjorative is not grounds for change. In regards to the 14th amendment merge, I think they should be kept separate, with the 14th amendment article focused more on the legal aspect and this article focused more on the social phenomenon. Happy edititng, TheKaplan 22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Simply because some people take offense to a term is no reason to abandon an article. Not only that, but the term 'Anchor Baby' is widely used in various publications. Even testimony before Congress, provided by recognized scholars, uses the term. As for cutting and pasting the 14th Amendment article into this one..... As with all articles in Wikipedia, things change here and there. For example, as this issue is being more thoroughly investigated, many researchers are finding that Wong Kim Ark, the ruling frequently cited as giving the domestic children of illegal aliens citizenship, actually excludes the children of illegals. The 14th Amendment article has been recently updated to properly reflect this, but those updates won't be automatically reflected here. In fact, I think we may have too much legal content within this article, which is frequently edited by people who have not thoroughly researched their edits. Magic pumpkin 21:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

definition

I cleaned up the language in the first paragraph to make it flow better and to reflect a less biased point of view. Hope you like it.Morlesg 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pejorative?

I'm working my way through the video files on the Souder site to find which one has Souder saying that "Anchor baby" is pejorative. Perhaps the footnote should include the date and title of the source video. Its not a reference if it doesn't tell you where to find the source (its rather like saying "the source is in that library over there"). I'm going to treat it as an unreferenced statement unless a more precise reference is provided.Psychohistorian 11:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My logging in earier anonymously was an honest mistake, not a sockpuppetry. As for your edit, Ill come back to it later.Psychohistorian 02:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another citation: [2] -Will Beback 03:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The opinion of shrill illegal alien mouthpiece Raul Contreras that "Anchor Baby" is pejorative should have little weight.BulldogPete 11:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the piece carefully you'll see it's the reporter who calls the term "pejorative". ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the piece carefully, you'll see the reporter is paraphrasing ethnic huckster Contreras's views.BulldogPete 10:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but it's just one of several sources. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two citations look pretty solid. Personally, I'd prefer three (I tend to think of that as a rule of thumb), but that's a personal standard. I'm content with two.Psychohistorian 16:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... Shouldn't this be in the earlier section on Pejorative? It is very common to find the adjective used by hispanic writers. However, pejorative is no longer accurate (if it ever was) when applied to "Anochor Baby". Please reply to my suggestion in the previous section. Also, it might be nice (if possible) to find the actual origin/earliest use of the phrase. Magic pumpkin 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Fourteenth Amendment

Disagree. Anchor baby is not more important than the amendment.72.200.62.214 13:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the discussion of immigrant children in the article on the 14th -- it's an important aspect of the amendment which is going to be more important going forward. Put in a refernce and hot link to "anchor baby" -- that is the appropriate course. The whole "anchor baby" concept stems from the 14th, not the other way around.

Strongly disagree. As the comment above says, the 14th amendment is an extremenly important topic, its title doesn't inherently convey any political bias and it probably receives a lot more hits than "Anchor baby" (a phrase which I'd never even heard of until I saw it on Wikipedia). Grover cleveland 14:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with merger. "Anchor babies" are an issue in the news and current public controversies and that justifies an article on the topic for those who hear the term for the first time and are looking for more information. Also, this article could really go into specifics about what government services actually ARE available to the "anchor babies" themselves and to their undocumented family members-- that would get into areas that are far afield of the 14th Amendment. Also, talk radio and Sunday morning news shows notwithstanding, the 14th Amendment actually comes into play far more often in other, completely different areas of the law, such as criminal cases. A brief mention on that article stating that the 14th Amendment was the basis for certain court decisions that established access to government services for children of immigrants should be sufficient, and people can read this article on the "Anchor babies" issue if they are interested in more.DismasMama 16:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)DismasMama[reply]

Tag

Someone added the "verify" tag with no comments on this page. That is not helpful. In your opinion what needs to be added, changed or supported with sources. Morlesg 09:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

strict Jus sanguinis

"They insist on a strict Jus sanguinis, "right of blood", process for obtaining the rights of nationality." I don't think a person can be naturalized by any means in a strict Jus sanguinis process. So, I don't think this statement in the article is true. -Psychohistorian 11:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the phrase "at birth" to this section, to make it clear that the point being argued is whether or not a given individual should acquire citizenship at birth. Naturalization is a totally separate issue. Richwales 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can "jurisdiction" really be split into subcategories??

I'm still confused about suggestions I've heard that the concept of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States could be split into subcategories — e.g., that an illegal alien (or an anchor baby) could be subject to U.S. jurisdiction for purposes of criminal law, but not subject to U.S. jurisdiction for purposes of jus soli citizenship.

It seems pretty clear to me that if illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children were declared to be immune from U.S. jurisdiction (in order to deny U.S. citizenship to the children), an inevitable — and unwanted — side effect would be that illegal aliens would have to be treated the same as foreign diplomats (with diplomatic immunity and subject only to being declared persona non grata and deported).

Otherwise, I would expect the courts to rule that exempting "anchor babies" from U.S. jurisdiction was merely a political ploy designed to deny them U.S. citizenship, but without truly granting the kind of immunity from the laws that has long been granted to foreign diplomats.

I would propose to at least bring up this issue in the article — and probably make other edits in order to come close to achieving NPOV. Comments, anyone? Richwales 01:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will see what I can find in terms of an answer, might take a couple of days though. Iirc this issue was breached somewhere in Wong Kim Ark, but don’t hold me to that just yet. Also I remember seeing the same thing brought up somewhere else that was authoritative, but have no idea where atm. I would suspect that the two could be legally separated. The question itself is worth pursuing. Brimba 03:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this topic seems to be all over the discussion page. Please people, continue the discussions where they are, instead of adding new ones. As for the multiple faces of jurisdiction.... read my responses in the earlier topics. Also, this page is mainly for the discussion of the article. If you disagree with the way something IS, and therefore don't understand it, this is not the place to ask or argue about it. Magic pumpkin 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turning into a racist term

I've noticed that the term is becoming used more and more in a racist connotation by hate groups to describe hispanics in general, regardless of knowledge of their ancestry. For example, I've noticed that on the SOS forums, the term "anchor baby" is included with other racist language that is shouted at protesting hispanics. Glenn Spencer of American Patrol also favors the word when referring to some hispanics even if he has little knowledge of their ancestry. Does anyone else agree that this should be included in the article? Mosquito-001 14:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you can source it. What you are discussing above is original research. -Psychohistorian 12:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No just thinking about researching. Relax, no editing has been done to the article. At least not on my end. I am merely discussing the possibility of researching(sources and everything) another use of the term. If one or two people are using the term as a racist term in general or the definition is too fuzzy, I won't bother. Mosquito-001 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any properly sourced and relevant content is something I'd welcome. If you can properly source it according to Wiki policy, I say "go ahead". -Psychohistorian 16:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sometimes"

The two listed sources say unequivocally that this is a pejorative term. If editors want to say that it is only sometimes used as a pejoriatve, then they need to find a source which says so. -Will Beback 12:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start by saying read my section above about this topic. That said, just because two sources say it's prejorative doesn't make it so, either. I can find tons of sources that say that elephants are not endagered, but taking over the world (see Stephen Colbert's entry vandalism). That doesn't mean it's true. Opinion is one view. Otherwise there wouldn't be controversies like Global Warming, Evolution vs Creationism, or Islamist Terrorism. The term "prejorative" itself is prejorative in this case. And until you can get interviews from everbody in the world to cite, those sources already listed are merely citations that show "some people concider the term prejorative". 68.48.174.136 14:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of it being used in a non-pejorative sense, or even better, of someone saying that it isn't pejorative? -Will Beback · † · 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Term pejorative violates the NPOV rule of wikipedia and has been removed by me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.0.101 (talk • contribs).

The characterization of the term as a pejorative has been sourced. How does it violate WP:NPOV? Does anyone claim that it isn't pejorative? -Will Beback · † · 22:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two source claiming somthing as pejorative does not make it a majority opinion. Wikipedia is based on majority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.17.0.101 (talk • contribs).

Please sign your talk post contributions. Wikipedia is based on verifiable sources. We have two sources which call it a pejorative term. -Will Beback · † · 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Souder reference is a direct quote. Please don't edit it. -Will Beback · † · 01:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Including the Souder quotation it's actually three sources. -Will Beback · † · 02:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone can provide a counter-source I'm going to revert the deletion. -Will Beback · † · 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Nativists"

"Nativists claim that the baby would become the "anchor" of a chain by which its family may receive benefits from social programs, and by which the parents may themselves eventually become lawful permanent residents or citizens of the United States."

Ummm, no. That is the fact of the matter, and the use of the charged and pejorative term "nativist" is yet another slander in this hideously-biased smear piece. BulldogPete 23:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing "nativist" (and the POV tag) until the dispute is resolved on talk.

How about "anti-immigrant activists"? I'll believe "opponents of illegal immigration" if you provide a single reference to a person who uses the term "anchor baby" but opposes reduction of legal immigration. --Rocketfairy 23:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think your use of "Immigration reductionists" is a good solution. -Will Beback · † · 00:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]