Talk:Anchor baby/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Anchor baby term outside US

In Finland this term is used on biological children (and non biological children, that are or are claimed to be adopted by parents) that are sent to Finaland and other EU countries to seek refugee by theirs parents, since underage people are more likely to get refugee status or at least permit to stay and less likely to be deported. If they are accepted they are able to get their parents and sisters and brothers legally in the country of question. Also families are able to send different children to different countries, which makes it possible to try to seek refuge from different EU countries at the same time, in hopes to be able to imigrate at least one such country or ability to choose country, something which is legally prohibidden by schengen agreement and frequently

Children born to parents that reside illegally or as tourists are not eglible to citisenship in Finland (or elsewhere in EU?), thus there are no anchor babies with the US meaning of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.101.4.121 (talk) 14:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources for this term being used in other countries, we can include them. If not, we can't include the material.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a bit arrogant for US Americans to try and hijack this phrase for themselves. This term is used in many other countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.2.160 (talk) 20:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, if (and only if) there are reliable sources that can be cited to illustrate the use of "anchor baby" outside the US, then by all means the information can be included. BTW, I would hesitate here to include expressions in languages other than English, because of translation issues, and also because the focus of this article is supposed to be the specific phrase anchor baby, and not the general concept of illegal aliens having children in order to gain an immigration advantage. — Richwales 22:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Torstar, now cited in intro. K7L (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Canada?

This "anchor baby" term is not unique to the US, even if it is more often used there than in other jus soli countries. The London Free Press in southwestern Ontario proclaimed recently that "Immigration Minister Jason Kenney says the government is considering citizenship law changes to prevent so-called anchor babies from automatically becoming citizens" here, for instance. (Admittedly, a Québécor rag and [by Canadian standards] biased right-of-centre, but a daily newspaper of general circulation nonetheless) --66.102.83.61 (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That's probably enough to internationalize the first sentence, as I suggested. However, since most sources are about usage in the United States, the rest of the article will still be about the United States. This could change if we find more sources on use in Canada or elsewhere.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Canada[1] 198.151.130.95 (talk) 08:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Double Tongued Dictionary

Please note this is a self-published source, and at first glance I'd say it's debatable whether it's acceptable to use Barrett as a source within WP:SPS. Anybody care to make the case that he can be considered a reliable source for purposes of this article? (Just to clarify the stakes here: if it can't be justified per SPS, it can't be used as a source.) Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It has been explained multiple times over the last 4 years why Grant Barrett and the Double-Tongued Dictionary specifically are reliable. See for example this and this. Basically, Barrett is an established and well respected lexicographer, who has various publications in the field, who specializes particularly in new and emerging terms like this one. The dictionary is indeed edited - by him - and has various other contributors. His reader comment falls into the category of self-published sources we can use (material written by established experts who've been published in reliable sources in the field) and offers key commentary on the DTD entry.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Without stopping to poke numerous holes in your reasoning, I'd say it would seem there's more going on here than your comment reveals, at least if this edit is any indication... Care to discuss? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss, and have been doing so for quite a while now. I think my two previous comments I linked to offer a fair summary of why I and various other editors over the years have determined that Barrett is reliable and a key source for this article. this earlier RSN discussion may also be helpful.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What I mean is that besides your reasoning on Barrett in the comment above being questionable, you didn't even attempt to justify other changes made in the exact same edit. So again: it seems there's more going on here than you're letting on. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. There has been extensive discussion here recently and I've been heavily involved (mealy to the point of exhaustion). It may be best for everyone not to make such major changes to the article without prior discussion and consensus while strenuous discussion is ongoing. This will go a long way toward keeping things civil and preventing edit wars.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As I said, I'm happy to discuss. However, again, I think your major changes (which were not previously discussed) are not an improvement, as some of them remove well cited key material and also remove important summary from the lead. In order to accommodate your concerns I've endeavored to restore only material removed problematically, though I reiterate that major edits like that really should be discussed first when there's an ongoing content dispute.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

All the previous discussions you've linked reveal a shaky consensus that you seem to be exaggerating handily. For instance, you don't even mention the distinction made at RSN between Barrett's opinionated talk-space comments to readers and what he actually sees fit to put in the body of his definition, even though that's centrally relevant to one of these very disputes. You also aren't being very up front with your edits, making numerous changes in a single edit, with some of the edits being completely un-explained and restoring material that misrepresents the sources it cites. I decline your invitation to discuss these issues first and I note that I've reverted your most recent edit—which restored a presentation of axe-grinding opinion as fact to the lead, and restored language that (as I've noted) distorts the source it cites. If you want to discuss these items, please start by explaining why it is justified to take a source that says it found "mixed" evidence on subject X and cite to it from WP article text that says that same source found "little" evidence on subject X. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Very few of my edits have done anything but to revert major changes that have been made over the past few days without any prior discussion - and which are clearly controverted. I have tried very, very hard to explain myself as well as possible, but that is very difficult when you and others make dozens of changes in a single go without discussion. It's putting the cart before the horse a bit to demand that I explain every restoration when you have not explained your changes in the first place. It is disconcerting that you seem to regard discussion as an "invitation" rather than a requirement. Once again, I politely ask in the spirit of BRD that you stop making major changes without discussion.
On Barrett, the previous consensus has long been clear that he's reliable. And yes, I did clearly distinguish between Barrett's dictionary entry and his reader comment. To repeat myself once again, the former is perfectly reliable, the second i would regard as an SPS, but one we can use as its coming from an established expert.
Yes, politifact uses the word "mixed". It's mixed because some the evidence involves "birth tourists" - not illegal immigrants. The article makes it clear that there is little if any evidence that illegal immigrants are coming to the US specifically so their child will be a citizen. It reiterates this multiple times, ultimately concluding that "However, we are not convinced that "drop and leave"[ie, illegal immigrants coming to the country so their children will be citizens] is a phenomenon."Cúchullain ^t/c 23:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

First, I am not responsible for other editors and I certainly don't vouch for anything said or done by an IP. That aside, please note that my edits are each quite small and rather painstakingly itemized, so that they can be easily tracked and reverted on an as-needed basis. It's not my practice to make "dozens of changes in a single go", and if I did that at any point it was unintentional. If you simply mean that I didn't stop and discuss/ask for approval for each one, then no—I don't feel the need to do that before making good-faith edits to bring the article into conformance with policy, and no policy requires me to do so, despite your intimations.

The rest of your comment is a bit troubling and I don't have the time or energy to address it right now. In the collaborative spirit, I won't make any further edits on these specific points in the meantime, but I have to comment that if the above arguments are representative of what you will bring to substantive content discussions, then I think those discussions will escalate past the talk page rather quickly. It appears to me that your vision of what this article should be involves a small bit of POV-pushing and playing fast and loose with the sourcing. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, at any rate, I appreciate your stance, though I really don't appreciate your intimations regarding my intentions. If you are worried about having edits altered or reverted, it's probably best not to make a lot of major changes in the middle of a content dispute without discussing them. I apologize if my words or actions have distressed you, but they have been made with good faith and with no intention beyond maintaining the neutrality and integrity of this article, regardless of the assumptions you seem to have developed about me.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Claiming to be doing something while doing the opposite is manipulative. Making untrue or exaggerated claims can trick other editors and is disruptive. 71.251.41.82 (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you have now moved on to making personal comments against editors who disagree with you. It really does your position no credit.Cúchullain ^t/c 02:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

He's got a point that your comments have been misleading and that this can be a problem for other editors, even if some of the misleading-ness can be chalked up to a simple mistake on your part. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Is the Double-Toungued source saying that "anchor baby" is also "anchor child"? If so, this would conflict with other sources as well as itself. Also, why does it say "choose American citizenship"? 198.151.130.91 (talk) 03:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

for the proposition that blog comments can ever be an acceptable source for anything at all other than claims about their author—but especially that they are an acceptable source here. I won't revert the explicitly attributed reflection of the comment for the time being, but I am reverting the insertion of it into the definition itself as if it were part of the listed definition itself. That's just plain misleading, and there is no sound rationale or acceptable policy justification for it that I've heard so far. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As i said above, my feeling and that of many others previously is that Barrett's comments on the DTD entry constitute a self published source that we can use per the guideline, as he's an established expert on the topic. And clearly Barrett and the dictionary itself are perfectly reliable.Cúchullain ^t/c 18:47, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've created a second, separate cite to the DTD article, dealing solely with Barrett's comment. I think both Factchecker's and Cuchullain's points have merit, and hopefully splitting the footnote material in this manner will address both of them. — Richwales 19:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I think it's a fair compromise.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

As long as everything is explicit in both the above-line material and the reference (which it currently is) I don't see the harm. However I'll draw the line at accepting the position (so far unstated, but obviously at play) that the Double Tongued Dictionary (again, self-published with no editorial control) should somehow be given more weight than the AHD. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

No one has argued or implied that the DTD should be given more weight than the AHD. But yes, it does feature editorial oversight, from Barrett (again, an established lexicographer who specializes in emerging words like this one). It has other contributors besides him.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This edit, in which you deleted the quoted AHD definition which I had added and replaced it with a highly contentious and unsubstantiated forum-space comment from Barrett, certainly implied to me that you think DTD should be given more weight here than the AHD.

If there is any WP policy that supports the remainder of your comment, please cite it now, because otherwise the comment is flatly ridiculous and flies in the face of the purpose behind WP:SPS, which refers to "editorial oversight"—which, both by its terms and its general usage in the English-speaking community, implies that someone other than the author has, at minimum, given each piece a quick look as part of the normal course of publication.

Further, your comment that the DTD "has other contributors besides [Barrett]" would appear to be directly contradicted by the "About" page of the DTD, which reads as follows:

This site and the information on it are compiled, edited, and written by Grant Barrett, with word-hunting help from Sarah Hilliard, Paul Deppler, James Martin, Tyson Burghardt, James Callan, Dianne Stevens, Adam Shuck, Matthew Hefferin, and Nicole Fortuna.

[emphasis added]. 'Nuff said. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 00:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I was the one who added the AHD source to the article in the first place, and neither that edit nor anything else I've said implies that the DTD should be given more weight than the AHD. I'm not really sure what we're even arguing about at this point.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Er... ok. So will it be acceptable if I delete the DTD definition and userspace comments from the article? It won't imply that I think the DTD should be given less weight. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:36, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I would not agree with this suggestion. — Richwales 14:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

[inserted out of turn] Well, the suggestion was a tongue-in-cheek response to Cuchullain's statement insisting that his edit did not imply DTD should be given more weight than the AHD. Since the edit in question both moved the DTD definition into a more prominent position and deleted the AHD definition entirely, the statement does not appear to make any sense at all. Inexplicably, he also deleted the AHD definition a second time, with an edit summary insisting, again, that he hadn't deleted that definition. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:24, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with removing the DTD definition and userspace comments from the article. 71.251.44.167 (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that I was the one who added the AHD source to the article in the first place

The history shows that you added it as a reference to the definition after it was brought up on the talk page, but did not actually put the AHD definition in the sentence. Very sneaky. This problem is still clearly visible in the current revision of the article. 71.251.44.167 (talk) 20:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's true IMO Cuchullain's comment was misleading, and perhaps deliberately so. However, I added the AHD definition to the text several days ago, and it still remains in the current revision. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Who the hell cares if the full quote is "in the sentence"? A full citation, including a link to the entry, has been there since I added it months ago, for anyone to verify. For the record, I don't care one way or another whether the little addition of the full entry is there or not, and I didn't intent to remove it. Nor did I re-revert it after the last time. And my comments are not misleading (and certainly not intentially so). The anon is grasping at straws, and Factchecker is simply assuming the worst.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly, I don't agree with removing the DTD entry. It is a perfectly reliable source, and I believe that consensus over the last four years supports this.Cúchullain ^t/c 17:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Why would you add a reference to a sentence that doesn't actually use the source? That is a total misuse of citations. Consensus can also change. 71.255.84.103 (talk) 20:44, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that's totally laughable. I added and worked on several sentences about the AHD entry in the article body, which the lead is supposed to be a summary of. I also initiated and participated in multiple sections above trying to sort out how to incorporate the AHD entry in the lead - which you have also participated in, using various IP addresses. Nice try though.Cúchullain ^t/c<

okay, I see what I did. I am eding with a smart phone and have determined this is not a "smart" idea. On my screen i thought that the AHD quote had been added to the citation, not the prose. I didn't realize my error until now, and was confused about why we were arguing about it, as I agree with it. The definition certainly wouldn't need to be in the citation (which, again, I added), but it's fine in the article body if the DTD entry is there. I apologize for the confusion, and I won't be editing the article on this stupid phone again. To reiterate, I do believe that the AHD definition is totally reliable and necessary to include in the article.Cúchullain ^t/c 22:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a comment at WP:RSN requesting more input on this issue. — Richwales 20:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I shall respond over there.Cúchullain ^t/c 21:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I've read this discussion, and it seems quite obvious to me that the "IP editors" are the same editor. Considering their lack of contribution other than this article (and their expertise in creating boxes), I'd go as far as to claim that they are puppets. I also note that User:Factchecker has taken an aggressive stance in this topic since the start of it, and keeps indirectly accusing Cuchullain of having a personal agenda on the topic. Taking such a position is not productive, and I'd recommend any further continuation of such actions to be taken to the Wikiquette board. Regards.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Before this escalates any more, I want to reiterate that the rise in tensions were partially the result of confused edits I've made. As I say I've been using a new phone and have been having problems editing Wikipedia on it. Again, I apologize for my part. While I don't wish to keep hearing these accusatory comments, I think all the good editors here will benefit from taking a breath and grabbing a beer. I know that is my plan, and I look forward to coming back later with a clear head.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Your response failed to answer the question. Do you not realize that the AHD is cited as a reference to the first sentence of the article, but the sentence does not use the AHD source? 71.251.41.233 (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

MarshalN20, those are flawed claims. This is a dynamic IP. I am not pretending to be more than IP editor. No one has claimed that, so you are not being productive. You also claim that I am a puppet, but your reasons are flawed and ridiculous. Since this is a dynamic IP, I don't know how you can claim that I have a lack of contribution other than this article. One also does not have to be an expert to create boxes. There are examples of the boxes in the above discussions on this very page. Even if creating boxes did require expertise, being an expert does not make one a puppet. I am not a puppet (sock or meat) of any of the editors in this discussion. I notice that you are currently blocked, but your comments here and on the RSN are not productive to the discussion and are a distraction. 71.251.42.158 (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe anything I've said sounded like an accusation of a personal agenda. Allegations of POV pushing, etc., questionable sourcing/attribution, etc., don't call the editor's good faith into question all by themselves. I said, e.g., that Cuchullain wasn't being up front with his edits, and that owed in large part to the mistake discussed above; it simply looked like he was trying to distract from, or hide, what he was actually doing (because he didn't realize he was deleting the AHD definition, his edit summaries didn't mention that, and it looked like trickery was afoot). With that confusion dispelled, what we're left with is a garden-variety content dispute, and my challenge to Cuchullain is best summed up in one of my previous comments: "It appears to me that your vision of what this article should be involves a small bit of POV-pushing and playing fast and loose with the sourcing." It's clear to me that whatever positions Cuchulainn has taken, have been taken in good faith; I'm only saying that the result is clearly contrary to policy.

As an aside: Wikiquette doesn't really do anything, even when a user is directly and explicitly accusing you of bad faith and deliberately piling on insulting comments over the course of many weeks.

As an aside to the IP: why don't you register an account? Until you do, I, personally, won't take anything you say very seriously, and others may view your actions with suspicion (and not entirely without reason). Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Why should Barrett's quote be given any weight at all? I cannot find it in any other reliable sources. 198.151.130.88 (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I see the RSN now. I will put my comment there. 198.151.130.88 (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Would the source on the sentence on Barrett's comment be a primary source on Barrett's comment? 198.151.130.96 (talk) 10:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries are your friend (and mine)!

These nearly 50 edits apparently didn't change much in the way of article content, but I wouldn't have known that if I hadn't spent a bit of time checking, because not a single edit summary was used! :( Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 10:50, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The edits totally changed the introduction, and removed much of the material attributed to the Double-Tongued Dictionary, including uncontroversial material. As it was all done without any discussion or consensus whatsoever, I've reverted. Changes the introduction was being discussed above here and there never was any consensus whatsoever to remove the DTD entirely (or to plagiarize the AHD, as the anon has attempted to do). Why these changes took 50 edits with no summaries I have no idea.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In addition to using edit summaries, I would strongly recommend to the IP editor that if he/she is going to be participating extensively here — and especially if he/she is going to be making major modifications to a controversial article — he/she should very seriously consider signing up for an account and using his/her account when editing. There is, as far as I'm aware, no convincing reason why someone in this situation would not want the conveniences and advantages of an account (see WP:ACCOUNT), and it will make it far easier for other editors to accept the sincerity of your intentions and interact with you in a collaborative fashion.

I would like to call people's attention to some sources that have been mentioned at WP:RSN in connection with this article. On page 77 of Barack Obama and African American Empowerment by Marable and Clarke ([2]), the following may be useful: "Further, the racialized language that casts Latinas as having 'anchor babies' in order to stave off deportation and attempt to guarantee their own ability to remain in the United States bears a striking resemblance to the racist rhetoric that characterizes African American women as having children to obtain welfare benefits. This racialized and racist language should be shocking to those concerned about America's racial history." And a 2010 ABC News story, "'Anchor Baby' Phrase Has Controversial History" ([3]) discusses the phrase at length, including mention both of people who consider it offensive and those who do not. I don't believe either of these supersedes or renders unimportant the "child of any immigrant" comment by Grant Barrett, however. A third source mentioned at WP:RSN — a piece by Greg Sargent of the Washington Post — seems less useful to me, in large part because (1) it's a blog and (2) Sargent doesn't directly discuss the "anchor baby" expression (and mentions of the term in his readers' comments don't count).

And regarding some of the material inserted last night by the IP editor (and reverted by Cuchullain), I would like to say that I do not believe it's necessary or even appropriate for this article to go into great depth regarding the phenomena of illegal immigration to, or birthright citizenship in, the US. These topics do need to be at least briefly mentioned here, in order to provide a context for the popular feelings that gave rise to the "anchor baby" expression, but this article should keep its focus on the expression and not become overly broad — just as, for example, we would not want the article on the "N-word" to become a comprehensive treatise on African-American history from the days of slavery through Reconstruction, Jim Crow, and the civil rights movement. — Richwales 17:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Cuchullain, since there is a discussion on the introductory sentence but not on the other stuff I changed and you reverted all of the changes instead of just changing or fixing some of them, I can assume you either disagreed with all of them other than the change to the introductory sentence or did not actually read the changes and therefore would have no idea what you are changing? I inserted the AHD definition in front of the DTD sentence in the introduction. I believe the AHD should be in the lead because of the sources that refer to the AHD definition. I put the AHD as a reference for the sentence that quotes the AHD and fixed the rest of the sentence to match the source. I removed a blog source and fixed the ref list by fixing duplicate references. I removed information that was not in the given source. I made a section title less vague and combined the two paragraphs that were redundant. I fixed the Wong Kim Ark sentence by adding a source and fixing the part of the sentence that was confusing. I fixed redundant sentences. I added a source that had a lot of information on the history and usage of the term. I added a sentence giving information on one of the controversies of anchor babies regarding the 14th amendment that was not previously in the article. I fixed the listing of a source on back-to-back sentences.

Your edit reinserted a blog source, changed the introduction so that the references didn't match the sentences, duplicated sources in the ref list, removed a source in the history and usage, added information that was not in a source, rewrote sentences to be in the negative construction making the sentences less concise and less simple, removed a source for Wong Kim Ark, made the Wong Kim Ark sentence confusing and unclear, listed the same source on back-to-back sentences, and created a redundant paragraph. Please explain.

Richwales, I agree that the article should not go into great detail on those topics and should just introduce and wikilink. I added one sentence that introduced a relevant concept that was not already in the article. Another sentence I added was an introduction sentence to the section. The rest of the stuff I added were sources. I will also use edit summaries in the future. 198.151.130.92 (talk) 00:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing and agreeing to use edit summaries. I, too, strongly encourage you to register an account if you plan on participating extensively here; it's quite difficult to follow you currently. To elaborate on my objections a bit, first, the changes to the intro were, frankly, confused and less clear than what was present already. It also copied the AHD directly without a quote, which is effective plagiarism (and an introduction shouldn't be a quote of another source anyway). Obviously the intro still needs work, but that wasn't an improvement. You also removed sourced information attributed to Barrett which is clearly relevant. I agree with Rich about the general material you added on immigration in the US. Finally, the "negative construction" you mention reflects what the source says accurately; your version did not. Regards.Cúchullain ^t/c 00:52, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Your response did not answer whether you read all of the changes or reverted them without reading. Reverting all of the changes without reading them would be inappropriate behavior because not all changes require approval, so if you did this, I will put back the changes that have not been addressed. If you did disagree with all of the changes, then your response did not address all of the issues. What information attributed to Barrett are you referring to? The negative construction is a manual of style issue. Do you want additional sources for that sentence? Your edit also added an unnecessary space between two adjacent citations.198.151.130.92 (talk) 03:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

If you make a massive spate of edits with no descriptive edit summaries whatsoever, another editor owes no more than a casual duty to check whether the edits were appropriate. Having found something objectionable and brought it to talk, Cuchullainn was under no obligation to take a painstaking inventory of your edits, since you could not be bothered to itemize them yourself. If you reinsert some of these changes it starts to look like edit-warring, and I note the burden of demonstrating consensus and compliance with WP:V always lies with the editor adding or restoring material.

Also, to echo previous comments, including my own, please register an account. Personally, I find it very difficult to take an IP seriously in any in-depth policy discussion. And, when an IP is citing to MOS for arguments about sentence construction, that just suggests to me that something is going on behind the scenes. I'm straining to be courteous here, because it seems like you're intentionally arguing right at the margins of various policies. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I replaced some of the anon's formatting fixes from their string of edits (I note, however, that those edits introduced significantly worse formatting errors in the introduction). Minor corrections to spelling and formatting are obviously not the problem; I believe we've been pretty clear about what the various problems are here talk page. Once again, anon, if you want to participate extensively and productively here, PLEASE register an account to make things easier for the rest of us. I can't think of any good reason you wouldn't want to do this.Cúchullain ^t/c 16:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Factchecker, if Cuchullain found something he disagreed with, he could have just changed the part he disagreed with. I listed changes I made above. Some of them have still not been addressed. I still need an explanation for why they were changed. 198.151.130.94 (talk) 03:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I combined the Wong Kim Ark and 14th amendment lines, which seems to be part of your complaint (it's not at all clear from your comments exactly what the issue is), as well as some other changes unrelated to your edits. Please follow, or at least respond to, our various suggestions that you register an account. I think we're all getting pretty tired of working with you under the current circumstances.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The Wong Kim Ark sentence doesn't make any sense using your wording. Where is the source? How is the Chinese Exclusion Act related to this article? My revision put Wong Kim Ark and the 14th amendment in one sentence and added a source for Wong Kim Ark sentence. Why did you make it a standalone paragraph? It needs to show its relation to the subject of the section (the immigration "status" because the child is a citizen). I also clarified the section title to show its relation to the article and child by saying relatives. Someone also changed the section title from "benefits" to "status". Is "status" the best word? It doesn't show the relation to the child. Wouldn't "benefits", "effects", or "status effects" be better? The source uses the word "benefits". I also exercise my right to edit without an account. Anyone who has a problem taking an IP seriously could take it to the village pump. 198.151.130.94 (talk) 14:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The only source that had been removed was one you added, from 1898. At any rate I reworded the lines and re-added your source, along with two up-to-date ones. I think "status" works just fine. And if you're really wanting to be taken seriously, you are well aware what you can do. I think we're done here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

198, due to WP's central focus on consensus, a big part of editing at any article involving content disputes is persuasion. A big part of persuasion is making your case clearly. I don't have any more than a general idea of what edits you're talking about above, because you used no edit summaries and aren't punctuating your arguments with diffs. And in absence of some decent, publicly stated reason for editing from an IP, your insistence on doing so, over protests, is likely to be regarded as annoying. That, in turn, will affect your ability to persuade. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 01:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Your version of the Wong Kim Ark sentence still does not have wording that matches the sources and has citation overkill. I believe my version was better. What issues did you find with it? 198.151.130.94 (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I listed changes above. The reasons for reverting some of the are still unexplained. The only part that could be considered a content dispute is the introduction sentence. I do not see discussion on the other parts of the article I changed. If you can't follow the discussion, it is because the Cuchulain has not clearly explained his changes. Differences between my revisions and the previous state of the article can be seen by comparing past revisions.[4][5] 198.151.130.94 (talk) 02:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am going to put back some of my changes because Cuchullain has only explained his changes to the introduction and to the sentence with negative construction, while not explaining the rest. 198.151.130.95 (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I assure you that the obstacle to me knowing what you're talking about is not attributable to Cuchullainn, nor is it affected by the fact that yes, Wikipedia's infrastructure does afford me the opportunity to sift through 50 unmarked edits myself to determine what edit summaries the author would have provided, had he been observing the standard practices of a cooperative editor. I'm probably going to revert some of your changes, and if I do, I'll use an edit summary to explain why. Please make sure you follow suit. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 11:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Anon, there's no such thing as "citation overkill", and the wording I added is about as clear as it could be to explain the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling in a brief way that's relevant to the topic at hand. You now have several editors telling you that your explanations were not clear. Please start listening.

I reverted some more of the changes, removing one unsourced line, restoring a source that was removed even as several inferior sources were added to other sections, and restored a section header which was superior to the one added. I didn't touch the new "Birthright citizenship controversy", but it's problematic on its face. It goes off on a tangent about the birthright citizenship "controversy" that's way beyond the scope of this article on the term "anchor baby", and attributes statements to sources that say no such thing. As Rich explained the other day, this article isn't the place for general discussion about American immigration politics; any such discussion needs to be directly relevant to the actual topic. That material maybe better suited for another article, but it's beyond the scope of this one.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Whatever concerns some of us might harbour regarding unregistered IP-anon editors, the fact remains that they are permitted by WP policies that are unlikely to change. See WP:HUMAN, which, though being an "essay" and not an official policy, does describe the official situation pretty well as far as I'm aware.

On the other hand, I noted an instance of outright IP vandalism in this article a couple of hours ago. Hopefully this was just an isolated incident. However, if we start getting persistent vandalism here from multiple IP addresses, it may become necessary to semi-protect the article — which would have the unavoidable side effect of preventing edits from all unregistered users (as well as from users with brand-new accounts). — Richwales 17:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Where in the sources did you get "regardless of their parents' status" for the Wong Kim Ark sentence? That phrase is also vague. What status are you talking about? The judicial requirement excludes those who are immune from U.S. law. This includes enemy soldiers and those serving an in diplomatic capacity of a foreign power. See WP:CITEBUNDLE for what I mean by "citation overkill". Why is there a blog source in the introduction? Birthright citizenship controversy is not beyond the article scope. Two of the sources use the term "anchor baby" and one uses "anchor child". The section does not go into detail. I just put an introduction sentence and two paragraphs each mentioning a key issue (three sentences). I did not list a bunch of arguments or bills introduced. 198.151.130.95 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Factchecker, you are under no obligation to go through all those edits. You can easily compare the two past revisions of the article to see what I did. Which changes that I listed are you confused about? I can tell you the location in the article for each one. Since Cuchullain undid all of the changes, he should be able to explain each of them when requested to. 198.151.130.95 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The information comes from the sources cited (the modern ones, and to a lesser extent, your outdated source from 1898). I've further clarified the line to say "parents' citizenship status". All sources are clear: the court ruled that with a few exceptions not particularly relevant here, anyone born in the United States was a citizen, even if their parents were not citizens or were ineligible for citizenship. From the NYT: "In 1898, the Supreme Court, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, interpreted the citizenship provision as applying to a child born in the United States to a Chinese immigrant couple." From Odo: "The central question was whether the Supreme Court would permit a native-born person to be deprived of his citizenship solely because of his parents' nationality [his Chinese parents being ineligible for citizenship]. In a divided opinion, the court ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen and must be allowed to reenter his country". Justice Gray's opinion explains the situation in further detail. I can't access Ho's paper at the moment, but it contains much elaboration to this effect. And yes, your additions regarding the birthright citizenship "controversy" is beyond the article's scope as it is currently presented.

As far as your various edits go, you are clearly familiar enough with Wikipedia to know that the burden of evidence is on the one adding or restoring material. Trying to shift the burden to the editors who have identified problems with your editors is putting the cart before the horse, especially in cases where the various issues have been explained to you several times by multiple editors.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Some comments on the latest round of changes:

• The Center for Immigration Studies needs to be explained; I want to see the note "(a non-profit research organization that advocates immigration reduction in the United States)" reinstated. Without this explanation, it's a disingenuously neutral-sounding name for what is in fact a partisan advocacy group.
• The phrase "regardless of their parents' citizenship status" should, I believe, say "citizenship or immigration status".
• I am not convinced that the new section "Birthright citizenship controversy" is necessary. This material seems to duplicate, and/or be inappropriately separated from, the "Immigration status" section. And I would repeat / support the comments already made to the effect that this article should not take more than a minimum amount of time talking about the legal controversy over jus soli (birthright citizenship) — it's OK to indicate here that resentment over the legal situation may be a factor leading some people to resort to derogatory language when referring to illegal immigrants and/or their children, but that's really all we should say about it in this article. — Richwales 21:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree on all accounts. Let's institute those changes.Cúchullain ^t/c 01:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? When have I asked others to find sources for material I added or restored? Only a small part of my edits added material. I have added sources. What unsourced material are you referring to? You say you identified problems with my edits yet you haven't identified them all in this discussion. You have ignored many questions regarding your edit.

There should be a source on the Center for Immigration Studies related to this article for more information to be added. I think the Wong Kim Ark sentence should be, "The Supreme Court decided in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that a child born in the United States, of alien parents domiciled in the United States and not serving in a diplomatic capacity, acquires United States citizenship at birth via the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." I think it should be combined with the sentence prior to it. The birthright citizenship section contains sources mentioning the term. Should a sentence using the term be added? It should be separated from the "immigration status" section because it is a separate topic. What material is duplicated? 198.151.130.95 (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Cuchullain, do not misinterpret or misrepresent sources. The Ho souce says "to be sure, the question of illegal aliens was not explicitly presented in Wong Kim Ark". Regarding what you say you used to say, "The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 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 country, regardless of their parents' citizenship status" and "All sources are clear: the court ruled that with a few exceptions not particularly relevant here, anyone born in the United States was a citizen, even if their parents were not citizens or were ineligible for citizenship", the NYT quote says "Chinese immigrant couple". The NYT source is not even one of the references you listed for the Wong Kim Ark sentence. The Odo source says "question". The actual ruling part of the quote does not even say whether this question was answered. 198.151.130.95 (talk) 04:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding restoring the description of CIS, I'd agree and point out that I already noted the organization's own website confirms that its aim is to reduce immigration. On a more general note, IMO it's usually going to be necessary to similarly identify groups talking about this issue, because most people who bother to make statements on this issue are not without an axe to grind, yet will tend to present themselves as morally and/or politically neutral. So without careful attribution and descriptors, readers would have no context against which to understand statements like "Diana Demagogue argues that those wishing to reduce illegal immigration are all racist, while Norm Nativist says that anchor babies are part of a wide Mexican conspiracy to infect U.S. citizens with hepatitis C." Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 12:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Anon, I'm sorry, but your selective quoting misrepresents the sources. The full paragraph you quote from Ho says "This sweeping language [from the Ho Kim Ark decision] reaches all aliens regardless of immigration status. To be sure, the question of illegal aliens was not explicitly presented in Wong Kim Ark. But any doubt was put to rest in Plyler v. Doe (1982) [which invoked the precedent set in Wong Kim Ark]." In fact, the very first thing Ho says about Wong Kim Ark is "In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that a child born in the U.S., but to alien parents, is nevertheless entitled to birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment." Our sentence is a fair paraphrase of that information (further confirmed by the other sources), and it makes it clear how this background is relevant to the article's subject. As for Odo, he says it was a "question" prior to the ruling; the court then answered it by confirming that Wong Kim Ark was a citizen. Your proposed wording is unclear, and not at all clear as to why it's relevant to the term "anchor baby". This is starting to look tendentious.

Factchecker, I agree on that, as with the rest of Rich's other proposed changes. Let's go ahead and institute them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the sources. "The sweeping language reaches..." is not saying the court ruled. Interpretations of the ruling must be separated from the ruling itself. Interpretations may be better suited for the birthright citizenship section. Wong Kim Ark is not Plyler v. Doe. Their rulings must be separated. Information on jurisdiction regarding Plyler v. Doe would have to be connected to Plyler v. Doe if that information is going to be put in the article. The sentence is supposed to be about the ruling of Wong Kim Ark. Ruling that Wong Kim Ark is a citizen answers whether or not Wong Kim Ark is a citizen. Interpreting it to mean that it answered other questions is misrepresentation. The sentence is relevant to the section and the term "anchor baby" because the under those circumstances, court ruled that the child is a citizen. Because the child is a citizen, the child can sponsor relatives for immigration to the U.S. in accord with U.S. law.What part of my proposed wording is unclear? As you said, the Ho source says, "In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that a child born in the U.S., but to alien parents, is nevertheless entitled to birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment". My sentence says alien parents. Your sentence says regardless of their parents' citizenship or immigration status. My proposal also puts the citizenship clause in the Wong Kim Ark sentence. I propose adding a sentence to connect the paragraph like the one I added before except with a citation in order to show the paragraph's relation with the section. 198.151.130.95 (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone removed information taken from the NYT source[6] saying that it was misleading. Can this editor explain? I may contact the editor on his talk page if he does not seem aware of this discussion. 198.151.130.95 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be more productive for you to seek the consensus here in the event that your additions are challenged. I don't see anything wrong with Ruslik0's revert or explanation thereof.[7] I'm going to go ahead and institute Rich's proposed wording changes, as I've suggested above.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It would be better if someone found a source on the Center for Immigration Studies similar to the one used for the sentence 198.151.130.95 (talk) 19:22, 29 March 2012 (UTC) You added information on the Center for Immigration Studies, but where is the source? The source should not be a self-source and would be best if it was relevant to the rest of the sentence to help show that it is being given appropriate weight. 198.151.130.95 (talk) 19:49, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Cuchullain, I was trying to ask Ruslik0 why he thought it was misleading so that I would know why he removed it. There is nothing wrong with asking for clarification. 198.151.130.95 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Verification for the CIS has already been explained to you by multiple editors. It's just a neutral description that meshes with how the group identifies themselves.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:57, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Again, where is the source? I cannot even bring this to the WP:RSN since you have not provided a source. If you do not have a source, you should self-revert unless someone else reverts your addition before you do, or I will bring this to the WP:NORN. 198.151.130.95 (talk) 20:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's now sourced, with the pertinent direct quote in the footnote, and the article wording was changed to conform to the source. I trust you will find this satisfactory. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 23:24, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for putting a source. Although the site requires registration, I will trust that you have verified the source. Although the information in the source is not in the same context as the sentence, therefore making the relevance of the connective trivia to the scope of the article questionable, having a source for the information is certainly better than having the information without a source so that the information is at least verifiable. 198.151.130.96 (talk) 03:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Intro edits

There are some major problems with these recent edits. First, outside the title, this source doesn't say that the term "anchor baby" is used in Canada, it specifically says "Canadian-born children — who in the United States might be disparagingly referred to as 'anchor babies'" (emphasis mine). As such it can't be used to override the various sources we do currently have that define the term as more or less specific to the United States. Second, this source for Guam doesn't mention the term "anchor baby" at all. Finally, we probably have enough for some material on the Canadian equivalent "passport baby", however, it it can't be put in the lead if it's not in the article body - the WP:LEAD should summarize what the rest of the article covers.
I expect it's probably accurate that the slur is used somewhat in Canada, but until we have a source specifically saying that (not just using it itself) we'd really better leave it out, especially considering we have multiple sources that tie it specifically to the United States. I'll take a stab at some edits.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Before the GOP changed the meaning.

Before the GOP Changed the meaning, Anchor Baby meant: a child a woman had to Keep a Man!

When a woman wanted to keep a man who might leave her, she would try to get pregnant in hope of the child would anchor the men to her.

Before the Political debate and re-defining this is what Anchor baby meant! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3:3488:8700:B1D7:9430:AA63:8725 (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

If (and only if) you can find reliable sources that support the above claim, then we can certainly consider including it in the article. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

RV Braking citation

Not sure what that is supposed to mean, but I assume it is vandalism, since reverting referenced edits from good sources using 'RV Braking citation' as your reason could mean nothing else but vandalism. Also the current definition 'non-citizen' is not correct, since a green card holder is a non-citizen, yet the pejorative term 'anchor baby' would never apply to a green card holder's (who is not a citizen) baby. Thus the definition needs to be corrected. Please do not revert without discussing the issue here. Cheers! Meishern (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

US v Wong Kim Ark

This is the ruling in that case and it states specifically in Section 118: "118 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." http://openjurist.org/169/us/649/united-states-v-wong-kim-ark In Section 93 it states exceptions to the 14th Amendment: "93....The fourteenth amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born within the territory of the United States of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. ..." Note that the word "Domicile" means "primary legal primary residence" Also on Section 96 there is not room left for doubt as the ruling specifically states: ""96 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. " By definition illegal aliens are not here with the permission of the United States and they cannot have permanent legal domicile until they are here with permission. So how can an illegal alien give birth to a citizen under the requirements of either the 14th Amendment or Wong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.249.4 (talk) 01:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

You're obviously not a lawyer. The court, even by your argument, didn't rule that they couldn't. The ruling addressed the issue before the court, and no other. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Anything that goes into the text of the article needs to be based on reliable sources and avoid original research. If you feel the above argument belongs in the article, you will need to cite reliable sources — and in order to maintain a neutral point of view, the article will need to cite experts explaining both sides. (On this particular issue, there definitely do exist recognized legal experts who have come down on both sides.) Note also, by the way, that self-published web sites (including so-called "patriot blogs") are not normally considered acceptable sources for material in Wikipedia articles. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 August 2015

not a pejorative term. Implying so creates the appearance of a bias on Wikipedia's part. 68.150.196.49 (talk) 16:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

 Not done per the multiple sources, it is a pejorative. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:00, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

History and Usage

While the text states that the first published use of the term "anchor baby" is in 1996, it has been in use in California since at least before Ronald Reagan's first term as Governor. I have no verifiable source other than having been born in California in 1952 and recollecting its usage back then as a hot button issue in local issues and discussed in local news casts of the day, especially in Southern California where I resided from 1964 through 1968. Finding anything verifiable would require some massive investigation in a time when little was archived as is the norm today. Anecdotal evidence would be very easy to come by and as the debate continues due its new importance in the 2016 Election season, I am sure someone will find something verifiable eventually. So contrary to what is stated presently, this is not a relatively new term and has been in use by at least Californians for over 50 years that I know of. The term was used to define a woman who legally or illegally crossed the border for the express purpose to have a child born in the United States and become an automatic citizen for the purpose of securing legal entry for the parents and family to the United States and or prevent deportation at a later date.

Kurt Walling 2602:30A:2C29:8F50:4D0B:2DDD:ADF6:50E7 (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Prof Malavet

What is the purpose of using his opinion in the article? He doesn't appear to be a linguist/lexicographer, nor have any qualifications whatsoever that makes his opinion relevant.Sofa King Insane (talk) 06:19, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Dan Patrick

Is listed twice. Pls fix

Because of the use of the comma, the sentence was actually grammatically correct. But I have reworded it to save confusion. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 07:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

"Illegal immigrant" changed to "undocumented immigrant"

Whether "Illegal immigrant" or "undocumented immigrant," our definition is more restrictive than the one cited from a dictionary. The foreign mother need not be illegal, undocumented, or even an immigrant: she can be a tourist come specifically to give her yet-to-be-born offspring American citizenship. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2015/04/01/china-usa-birth-tourists-business-strong/24887837/ , http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/24/politics/jeb-bush-asian-people-anchor-babies/ (listen to the discussion after Jeb Bush speaks) 195.166.150.98 (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The mother needn't be an immigrant at all to be a birth tourist (which isn't illegal). I've restored the language referring to the mothers as foreign nationals. gobonobo ^{+ c} 13:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

But foreign nationals are by definition residing in th host country, in this case America. Taking a vacation to America, or planning to travel for the purposes of having a child be born on US soil does not make you a resident (legal or otherwise) and certainly not w foreign national as it is defined. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofa King Insane (talk • contribs) 14:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Foreign national here is synonymous with 'foreigner'. The term can refer to "any person who is not a citizen or permanent resident alien of the US" so includes people who are just travelling in another country. gobonobo ^{+ c} 04:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Is it worth looking at the changes in the UK, through the British Nationality Act 1981m changes to Jus soli etc??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_Act_1981#Modification_of_jus_soli — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.171.128.167 (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

No. This article is not about jus soli or birth tourism — it's supposed to deal only with the history, usage, and controversy surrounding the term "anchor baby". — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)