ANCHOR BABY: ANOTHER LEFTIST ATTEMPT AT CENSORSHIP

“Anchor babies” are identified as such because their parents are illegally in the country and the parents are fully aware that once the child is born he/she/they are immediately eligible for government handouts, among these are WIC subsidies, Food Stamps, housing assistance and welfare and may even include, under the Obama administration, legal residency. This term is used to quickly refer to the situation of these children while economizing words. This method of creating terms for people is quite common in society. I don’t recall anyone ever objecting to the term “crack babies”; a term used to describe children who are born to mothers that are addicted to crack cocaine. Is this a form of racial slur? Is this a detestable label? How about “welfare mother” or “soccer mom” or DINK (dual income no kids), or Yuppie (young upwardly mobile), or X-genner, Y-genner? And what about the use of the term “Tea bagger,” is this also a detestable label? This term is also meant to punish, degrade and dehumanize. No-one on the left ever called for the end to its use?  Personally I find the term Chicano offensive but I have never called for the end of its use. This indignation is nothing more than an attempt to marginalize and silence anyone who disagrees with the left's view on illegal immigration: if you use the term you are racist and therefore your ideas are not worth listening to.

The left wants to silence anyone who takes a position against their agenda. This does not, however, change the dynamics of the phenomenon we know today as anchor babies. The United States is broke and indebted up to its ears; unfettered immigration is steadily increasing that debt as more and more illegal immigrants come across the border with the sole intention of giving birth to their children in the United States in an effort to abuse the system and to take advantage of the American people.

The left claims that birth-right citizenship is a constitutional right, when, in fact, Rule of Naturalization is a power given to the Legislative branch under Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: “To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;” This would make it statutory, not Constitutional. I’m
sure that the left would then point to the 14^th Amendment as Constitutional proof, but even Senator Howard, who wrote the 14^th Amendment explicitly stated that it was not intended to apply to aliens: "This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”… Senator Lyman Trumbull, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, elaborated: "What do we mean by 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States? Not owing allegiance to anyone else. That is what it means ... It cannot be said of any (one) who owes allegiance ... to some other government that he is 'subject' to the jurisdiction of the United States."

If the left wants people to stop the use of the term “anchor baby” they should support efforts to eliminate the situation which creates this category of people. If illegal immigration is the root cause of what society calls “anchor babies” then the logical solution is to eliminate, as much as possible, illegal immigration. But this is not part of the left's agenda; they merely want to squelch people’s right to express their opposition to illegal immigration by feigning indignation instead of talking about a real solution to the illegal immigration problem in the United States.