Dictionary now calls 'anchor baby' an offensive term
The term "anchor baby" is sometimes used by those against automatic citizenship for all children born in the United States.
December 8th, 2011
12:22 PM ET

Dictionary now calls 'anchor baby' an offensive term

Editor's note: This story contains language that some readers may consider offensive.

The first new edition of the American Heritage Dictionary in 10 years contained 10,000 new entries – and one of them in particular caused a flurry of protest among immigrant and Latino advocates.

The fifth edition of the dictionary defined the term “anchor baby" as  “A child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family.”

The original definition did not include any indication that many people the term is offensive, as it does for words such as “nigger” and “spic.”

Immigration Impact, a group that that advocates for the rights of immigrants, first covered the word’s inclusion on its blog on December 2 and pressed for a change that would reflect the “poisonous and derogatory nature of the term.”

After reading the post, the executive editor of the dictionary, Steve Kleinedler, agreed that the definition needed to change.

The current wording was added to the online dictionary on Monday. It flags the word as “offensive” and defines “anchor baby” as being “used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child’s birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother’s or other relatives’ chances of securing eventual citizenship.”

Kleinedler told Colorlines, a blog that reports on issues of race, ethnicity and social justice, that changing the word was more about accuracy than outrage.

“Personally, this was not a reaction that we have to fix it because people are angry,” Kleinedler told Colorlines. “We fixed it because we were wrong. And I, as the executive editor, acknowledge the fact that this was an error and I take responsibility for that.”

This isn’t the first time that a dictionary definition has caused controversy. In 2003, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary added a second meaning for the word “marriage” that included same-sex couples “in a relationship like that of traditional marriage,” which offended those who believed the word should only be defined as describing a relationship between a man and a woman. The dictionary did not change the definition.

But in 1998, Merriam-Webster altered its definition of the word “nigger” after it was the focus of a letter writing campaign. The definition shifted from “a black person … usually taken to be offensive” to one that emphasized the offensive nature of the term.

Posted by
Filed under: Ethnicity • Immigration • Latino in America • Pop culture
soundoff (1,140 Responses)
  1. Latino Mike

    I'm sick of ignorant Americans who think that "California", "New Mexico", "Nevada", and "Arizona", are English names and that Latinos should return to their country of origin.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
    • jdurand1970

      People of the world! See what happens when you leta two year-old unattended at a computer.

      Hope you got that all out of your system, palintwit.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:40 am | Report abuse |
  2. Tired old Bigot


    December 9, 2011 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
  3. Notso

    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. This is the first part of the 14th Amendment. Notice "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." This means that babies born in the US to illegal aliens (who are not subject to the jurisdiction thereof, except for the legal right of the country to expel them) should not be interpreted as legal citizens.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:30 am | Report abuse |
    • Air Force Orphan

      News Flash, the Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. So get over it.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:35 am | Report abuse |
      • Notso

        Wrongly. And the Supreme Court often changes its opinion on issues. No reason to get over it, if the interpretation is dead wrong, and it is, and if there is a chance it can be overturned, and there is.

        December 9, 2011 at 11:37 am | Report abuse |
      • Boomba

        I don't remember the Supremes ruling on jurisdiction. They have alluded to the issue of illegal immigration, but being born in a jurisdiction you have no right to be in is another matter.

        December 9, 2011 at 11:52 am | Report abuse |
      • MidWestKev

        Direct Supreme Court verdicts: The 1866 Civil Rights Act stated that “persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power” would be considered citizens. Senator Lyman Trumbull, who helped facilitate the adoption of the 14th Amendment, said that “subject to the jurisdiction” of the U.S. included not owing allegiance to any other country. In 1872, it was determined that children born in the US of foreign ministers do not get citizenship. 1884, an American Indian (Elk vs US) was denied citizenship because of the allegiance to his tribe. Later in 1924, American Indians and their children were granted citizenship as a waiver to this amendment. In 1898 (Wong Kim Ark vs US), upheld that only children born to lawful residents could be citizens.

        December 9, 2011 at 2:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • Johan S

      In that case they must have diplomatic immunity from crime too. I mean, if they are not subject to the jurisdiction they can go about robbing and pillaging .. and you can't charge them with anything since they aren't subject to US jurisdiction.

      I reckon diplomats are not subject to the jurisdiction, neither are people born in embassies.

      December 9, 2011 at 7:39 pm | Report abuse |
  4. Navy Vet

    I m sick of Mexicans in my country, PERIOD

    December 9, 2011 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
  5. Boomba

    A small amount of crazy people bullying a Dictionary doesn't make anchor baby offensive, sorry, it's not and never has been. There are even travel organizations that arrange people to give birth here so they can have an anchor baby, it's big business.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:22 am | Report abuse |
    • jdurand1970

      Boomba, so give me an example of the word used in a neutral way. Please and thank you.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:31 am | Report abuse |
    • Scott

      How does displaying affection have anything to do with it. Is immigrant a dirty word? To some it is, but stop trying to guilt. American law should be changed such that someone born in this country to MEXICAN citizens is a MEXICAN citizen not an American citizen. They are using the law as a way around immigration, and it should be stopped. Is that racist? No. I didn't say HISPANIC, I said Mexican citizen, which has nothing to do with race. If you don't like that and you like people of Hispanic birth so much, then I recommend you move to Mexico. I actually like Hispanic people. I love their cultural family values. I love REAL Mexican food. I love alot of things about them. I don't like it when they (or a black person, white person or person of ANY color) skirts the law, because a nation without law is anarchy, which is what ANCHOR BABIES activities is part of in the way it is used. So get out your blow horn and call me racist. I prefer to be a law abiding citizen in support of a peaceful country where mercy can be freely offered NOT demanded.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:38 am | Report abuse |
    • jdurand1970

      It has everything to do with it.

      How is the word intended to be received? It is similar to other derogatory words used to describe hispancis (I can't type examples here because they're not allowed).

      December 9, 2011 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
  6. SoCal Rick

    If you control the language you can temper the argument. This is a blatant attempt to ban a word/phrase that accurately describes a method to skirt immigration law. If you can't talk about it you can't implement ways to stop it.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:18 am | Report abuse |
    • jdurand1970


      There is no effort to ban the word, just to define it in its proper context.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:20 am | Report abuse |
  7. jdurand1970

    Soylent Green is PEOPLE!!!

    December 9, 2011 at 11:17 am | Report abuse |
  8. Jimbo

    You illegal immigrant supporters can't let a comment be up that you can't argue with and flag it......this is America where we have discussions. Even if the comment doesn't state anything racist it just upsets you becuase it's true and you flag it. Pretty soon all these Anchor Babies are going to be in office and you'll be put in jail for speaking your mind, GTFO.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:15 am | Report abuse |
  9. RedAvenger

    Oh, you mean the Southwest that was stolen from Mexico by a bunch of U.S. citizens who wanted to expand slavery and needed more slaveholding territory to check the influence of the "free states" in Congress?

    December 9, 2011 at 11:12 am | Report abuse |
    • Jimbo

      So I guess you support the Mexican takeover....congrats.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:23 am | Report abuse |
  10. BRBSanDiego

    You are so wrong. Illegals come across the border here in San Diego expressly to have children. They go to the welfare hospitals and you and I pay for it. The USA is one of the very few countries that grant citizenship just because someone is born here. Get in line like all other LEGAL immigrants, learn English (free at many places), pass the simple citizenship test, and then and only then enjoy the privilege of living here. Over 70% of illegal mothers are on some type of public assistance. We can send the bills to Mr. Dingdong.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:06 am | Report abuse |
    • Dingman

      Okay, so if an adult breaks the law, we should punish his or her child? How far will you take that? Or do you limit it only to a very specific category of American citizens?

      December 9, 2011 at 11:11 am | Report abuse |
  11. dan

    Don't like the term "anchor babies" go back where you came from!

    December 9, 2011 at 11:06 am | Report abuse |
    • jdurand1970

      So how will that work? I think the word is offensive and my folks have been here since the 1700's.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:17 am | Report abuse |
    • Dingman

      Yes, well, the anchor babies are from America, just like everyone else born in America. And by the way, they are also American citizens.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:18 am | Report abuse |
    • Bob

      I am where I came from. What can I do now?

      December 9, 2011 at 11:34 am | Report abuse |
  12. Jimbo

    Just google 'Illegal Immigrants National Forest' if you can't keep up on the news yourself.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:02 am | Report abuse |
    • jdurand1970

      Or I could just take a trip up to Humboldt County and see all the white-run marjuana crops in the woods or I could take a trip to the local trailer park to see all the broken down cards and dirt yards.

      Point is people of all races do crap like this.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
  13. Dingman

    Well said? When is it ever appropriate to compare other humans "rats."

    December 9, 2011 at 11:02 am | Report abuse |
  14. jdurand1970

    "Our national forests will be infested with broken down cars, trash and old marijuana plantations"

    Wait...are you talking abotu hispanics or white trash here?

    December 9, 2011 at 10:59 am | Report abuse |
  15. Miguel

    I am hispanic, and I am a conservative. I went through the process to get my citizenship because it is the law here. And I will have YOU know, that I am not white and for you to generalize conservatives as white makes you narrow minded!

    December 9, 2011 at 10:54 am | Report abuse |
    • jdurand1970

      I feel cut to the bone...oh wait...that was just gas.

      I'm sorry, what were you saying again?

      December 9, 2011 at 11:12 am | Report abuse |
  16. JB

    When there are no more illegals or other foreign nationals on visas having children in this country for the purpose of gaining citizenship through loophole the term anchor babies will go away. Until then the term is very accurate and will be continued to be used no matter what some knee jerk civil liberty nuts feel about it. If the media drops this like they do really important matters this will be history so fast it'll not have even made a blip on the radar of real life.

    December 9, 2011 at 10:52 am | Report abuse |
    • jdurand1970

      But you would agree that the intended use of this word is to be disparaging, right? I mean, it isn't intended to be used in an innocuous fashion. It is typically used to negatively describe a perception of why a child was brought into this world.

      So, it would not be inaccurate to include in the definition that the word is derogatory, right?

      December 9, 2011 at 10:58 am | Report abuse |
      • Why Use Facts

        You say it is "typically" used to mean a certain thing, indicating that it is not always used in a derogatory way yet the new definition indicates it can only be used in a derogatory way.

        December 9, 2011 at 11:08 am | Report abuse |
      • jdurand1970

        I used "typicall" to allow for the off-chance that there is a non-disparaging way to use the word.

        The reality, however, is that I have never heard the word used in a non-disparaging way and can't envision how it would be.

        December 9, 2011 at 11:10 am | Report abuse |
  17. Jean

    If they think the definition is offensive, they should be American citizens and see how many feel about anchor babies themselves.

    December 9, 2011 at 10:50 am | Report abuse |
    • jdurand1970

      So your think the editors of the American Heritage Dictionary aren't US citizens?

      I suppose it's possible (I haven't checked), but I'm pretty sure Steve Kleinedler is a citizen.

      Just saying...

      December 9, 2011 at 10:52 am | Report abuse |
  18. Brent

    BS! You and your kind will be the first to say "but you can't sperate families by deporting illegal alien mothers and fathers, and uncles, aunts, and cousins and second cousins and third cousins, forth cousins. And for those of you saying that Americans will not do the work, WHO WAS DOING THOSE JOBS BEFORE THE MEXICAN INVASION?

    December 9, 2011 at 10:38 am | Report abuse |
    • jdurand1970

      So you'll be busting your butt for dollars a day then, Brent?

      Good job, young man. I'll be looking for you out in the fields during the 100+ degree Texas summers, working for a few dollars a day.

      Instead of focusing all your white-rage at the people coming over illegally, why do you save some for the white American business owners who create the reason for people coming over here illegally. Save your anger for the white American business owners who intentionally hire illegal immigrants to exploit them in sub-standard and unhealthy working conditions where they don't have to pay employee taxes and they can get away with treating these people like sub-humans.

      How about that?

      December 9, 2011 at 10:47 am | Report abuse |
    • conrad

      Before the Mexican invasion there were slaves who worked 'those jobs'. Then American poor and now that we can't compete with cheap labor in other countries we have demand for those who are willing to work for next to nothing without benefits or protection. But it has been this way for a long time and our government has known since they were written that our current trade policies won't work without a massive force of cheap illegal workers ... so they let them come.

      December 9, 2011 at 10:49 am | Report abuse |
    • roger

      if not for these illegal immigrants, farmers would have to pay minimum wage, OSHA guidelines, benefits etc. Your head of lettuce, like all other crops that depend on these immgrants would skyrocket overnight and you will then be complaining on the high inflation rates. Let the immigrants in, monitor them, and it they work hard and don't commit any crimes let them earn their citizenship.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:02 am | Report abuse |
  19. rto86

    Haha I'm sure they care what you think! What a joke of a life you must live.

    December 9, 2011 at 10:28 am | Report abuse |
  20. Annatala

    So silly. The problem isn't that we lack sufficient transportation to deport them.

    December 9, 2011 at 10:27 am | Report abuse |
  21. gensrchr645

    Many countries allow dual citizenship to babies born of a foreign mother on that country's turf. Pregnant Asian women fly into this country all the time to have their dual citizenship babies and then they fly back home. The problem is not "anchor babies", it's an incoherent immigration/road to citizenship program. A lot of good decent hard working people come to this country, illegally, and do work that Americans do not want to dirty their hands on. It is time for our legislators to provide a means for legal entry or for American citizens to get out in the fields and sweat and get dirty.

    December 9, 2011 at 9:53 am | Report abuse |
  22. Poncho Via

    Anchor Babies are what me and my compadres threw into the American gutters after we slit their U.S. Citizen mother and father's throats, raped their sisters (and most times young brothers, too) then burned their U.S. homes. America is so stupid, that now they let my decendents into their country, and half of the populace actually tries to protect them from being deported. Viva La Mexico! Poncho Via lives in the hearts of "latinos", the proof is on their living room walls, where they have my picture hanging.

    December 9, 2011 at 9:26 am | Report abuse |
  23. gandfs

    Never heard of the word. Sounds like a Tea Party word lmbo

    December 9, 2011 at 9:19 am | Report abuse |
    • JimboJones

      Who cares if you never heard of the term? The definition, as it was, is correct and should not be changed to indicate that it is "offensive." Political correctness from namby-pamby liberals is sickening. Anyone who is in this country illegally and intentionally conspires to concieve a child in order to obtain citizenship is no different from those who commit insurance fraud. The child is not to blame but it is what it is: an anchor-baby.

      December 9, 2011 at 9:37 am | Report abuse |
      • gandfs

        Ummmm ok...my comment wasn't debating any of that lol try again

        December 9, 2011 at 9:39 am | Report abuse |
      • conrad

        The term is offensive, and so is your obvious ranting hatred of these people.

        They are human beings searching for a better life, just as your ancestors did. They are in many ways a benefit to our society and cost vastly less than the bilking that banks and investment houses do to us.

        We are our brothers keeper and at the end of the day all the matters is other people. Don't be a tool for conservative media which would rather have you blame the little dark people for all that ails this country than to see the truth of the darkness of greed and corruption. We take advantage and pay them $6 an hour with no benefits and no time off, but can't see fit to treat them like human beings. These are very dark times ...

        December 9, 2011 at 9:55 am | Report abuse |
    • chefdugan

      It hasn't been used that much but it is what it is. I think the law is wrong and both parents and the kid should be shlpped back to wherever they came from

      December 9, 2011 at 9:40 am | Report abuse |
      • Hiernonymous

        The kid came from here. Just as much as you did.

        December 9, 2011 at 10:40 am | Report abuse |
  24. James

    Mexicans kill by committing economic genocide, tontop the list of crimes. We need to stop even legal immigration from mexico, if there is such a thing.

    December 9, 2011 at 8:32 am | Report abuse |
  25. Jim

    The definition should read: anchor baby is the act of yearly reproduction for the gain of benefits and dem votes.

    December 9, 2011 at 8:25 am | Report abuse |
    • Josef Bleaux

      The definition of ignorant bigot in the dictionary should have a photo of Jim

      December 9, 2011 at 8:41 am | Report abuse |
  26. echo40

    Paul: Immigrate to U.S. is not virtually impossible. There are hundreds of thousands people who come here legally every year, I am one of them. Why should I follow the rules while some people can just come here ILLEGALLY and have a baby and have the same rights as I do?

    Also, When did difficult become an excuse to break the law? should I get a pass for bank robbery if my excuse is make money the legal way is too difficult?

    Third, there is a reason it is easier to immigrate when you have education and skills. The age of mass manual labor can raise a countries economy is over. We need engineers, computer scientists, bio-chemists, in short, people who have skills. What we don't need is for another country dump its unskilled, uneducated mass to U.S. so that OUR social system will take care of them.

    December 9, 2011 at 8:05 am | Report abuse |
  27. Greg Gilbert

    People don't understand multiculturalism. If something is part of a culture and you or a bunch of people find it offensive then too bad, so sad! We don't go around finding what aspects of a culture we find offensive and then ban them in the public arena. Now your more than welcome to criticize because open criticism is part of traditional American culture, but at the end of the day we let them live the way they want. That means a confederate flag, anchor baby or what have you.

    December 9, 2011 at 7:45 am | Report abuse |
  28. sickofit

    Offensive? Calling a criminal a criminal maybe offensive but it's only offensive to the criminal....

    December 9, 2011 at 7:41 am | Report abuse |
    • Alicia

      You are right and anchor babies ARE offensive.

      December 9, 2011 at 8:22 am | Report abuse |
  29. Mike84

    Well depending when your grand parents came over there were laws if your refering to the frist settlers from England then no at that time there was no law aganst it but then you wern't going to a new country if you were English or any other European colony since it belonged to your own country so it was like going from new york to new jersey. Now if they came over after the country was founded there were laws which still play into today more of qoutas for certain groups. so only so many were allowed to come in each year and they had to go though customs typically on an island before they could go to the mainland.

    Now will give you it is true that the jobs they do Americans dont want to do and would be very hard to get them to do and not at so low of a wage also it nearly impossble to remove them all

    December 9, 2011 at 7:12 am | Report abuse |
  30. DRK

    I hate hearing this BS line, "At this point I agree with having a sensible immigration program because let's face it many of the jobs these illegal immigrants are doing Americans won't do."

    American's WILL do the jobs, they just want to get paid minimum/fair wage for it to pay their bills.

    Companies use ILLEGALS because they get away with paying way under minimum wage to get the job done, because they live still in 3rd world conditions.

    December 9, 2011 at 7:09 am | Report abuse |
  31. I.P. Freely

    Bless You Water Maker,
    No great internet debate is complete without a reference to the "mute point".

    Lemme guess, I'll bet you've let a few "Statue of Limitations" fly off your keyboard, too, yes?

    December 9, 2011 at 6:42 am | Report abuse |
  32. Katie

    Too bad. Anchor babies are what they are.. If you don't like it, don't come here illegally and have anchor babies. We'll still throw your behind out, anchor baby or no anchor baby...

    December 9, 2011 at 6:11 am | Report abuse |
  33. Mr Myxlptlk

    When your great, great, great grandparents came over, the population was only like 20 million; there was ROOM for anybody and everybody. The only ones they tried to keep out were known criminals and retards like you. We weren't even a country West of the Mississippi yet...

    December 9, 2011 at 5:35 am | Report abuse |
  34. Water Maker

    @sara81 Most euroopean "immigrants" ancestors did not come here legally. True enough, however my great great grandparents rigistered at Elis Island, and didn't sneek into this country. So you point is mute. While I can't blame immigrants for trying to improve their lives and that of their children. There are ways into this country legally, it's called a work visa. What the government needs to do is charge the immigrants to enter this country to work. If they can afford to pay coyotes several thousand dollars to get into the US, then they can pay the US to enter legelly. With all the immigrants coming over the border, paying their way accros, well then we can start reducing the deficit, plus then we are taxing every one of them, and we know who they are. Just a thought.

    December 9, 2011 at 4:04 am | Report abuse |
  35. Dan

    The federal government should make it a felony with jail time for hiring illegal workers. Companies would then demand more visas for Mexican workers rather than going around the system and forcing the costs onto the workers and taxpayers.

    December 9, 2011 at 3:36 am | Report abuse |
  36. Dan

    Nearly every other advanced nation does not give birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. Liberals seem to dream of the U.S. being more like Europe, but Europe is in serious debt trying to handle their social programs with just their own citizens, legal immigrants, and much smaller numbers of illegal immigrants. Try adding on 20 million+ illegal immigrants and all of the social programs will collapse. I have full respect for immigrants that come here legally, and often work H1-B jobs (typically lower pay and more hours) for 10 years or more to gain residency so that they can apply to become U.S. citizens. I have little respect for people that cross the border illegally and have a child at taxpayers expense.

    December 9, 2011 at 3:27 am | Report abuse |
  37. Josh

    If "anchor baby" is offensive, they need to change "gold digger" as well: "n. Informal
    A person who is in a romantic relationship in order to get money or gifts from the romantic partner, especially a woman seeking to marry a rich man."

    December 9, 2011 at 2:04 am | Report abuse |
  38. doughnuts

    Then they should stay out.

    December 9, 2011 at 1:58 am | Report abuse |
  39. doughnuts

    Your initial assertion is foolish. If there were no immigration laws to break, then by definition their entrance into the country was legal. To use your "logic" the Siberians that crossed the land-bridge whose descendants became the so-called Native Americans were illegal immigrants.

    December 9, 2011 at 1:55 am | Report abuse |
  40. The dumbing down of america is complete

    Before borders the world was free..After borders we are all pinned in a cage like animals...Idiots!

    December 9, 2011 at 1:51 am | Report abuse |
  41. Joscel

    I thought that an "anchor baby" was what women did by getting pregnant in order to keep their man around. Now I know.

    December 9, 2011 at 1:33 am | Report abuse |
  42. svann

    Its not disparaging to the child though. Its disparaging to the people that have so little respect for themselves and for children that they would have a child just to create a loophole that will allow them to stay. Thats about as low life as the ones that have children just so they can get more welfare.

    December 9, 2011 at 1:22 am | Report abuse |
    • Dale

      I agree, even though you left out that those who use their "anchor children" also have no respect for the LAW of the land that they and their "anchor children" are INVADING!!!

      December 9, 2011 at 11:24 am | Report abuse |
  43. Tom

    So how many exceptions do you tools want to make to our First Amendment rights? Anything that incites "imminent lawless action" is understandable, but how far will you take it? Are you willing to compromise your Second Amendment rights? Eh, bad question. How about your Fourth or Fifth? You want cops to be able to search your house without a warrant or imprison you without trial? If you show a willingness to compromise on one right, your complacency will be recognized and exploited. Stop hating America.

    December 9, 2011 at 1:17 am | Report abuse |
    • Amy

      What does this have to do with your first amendement rights? You can still use the phrase anchor baby if you want to. The dictionary is just giving you notice that people will be offended by your use of it. It doesn't affect you in the slightest if you don't care about offending them.

      December 9, 2011 at 10:57 am | Report abuse |
    • Lee

      "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."-Benjamin Franklin. I believe this sums up your argument.

      December 9, 2011 at 7:30 pm | Report abuse |
  44. Tom

    I'm sorry, but I find the word "ignorant" offensive. Can you please not use it and spare a tampon for me as well?

    December 9, 2011 at 1:07 am | Report abuse |
  45. ???

    Look...there are many different kinds of people who immigrate to this country every day. Illegal or not, it is important to know why they have emigrated here to the first place. Yes, illegal immigration is wrong, but let me ask you all this: WHY immigrate illegally? What is the majority of illegal immigrant's reason for doing so? Knowing this will help us understand why most illegal immigrants come here illegally. There are good and bad reasons for immigrating illegallly: A bad reason is coming here to do work when you really need a work visa. A good reason is escaping from political oppression or civil violence in which one is not able to get their country's government's permission to emigrate legally. Securing "our" borders using tighter security is ot going to eliminate the issue with illegal immigration. Hiring federal social workers and other civil servents specializing in immigration and foriegn policy will help do the trick. That way, we know who and why goes in illegally, and figure out what we can do with them in a diplomatic manner.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:51 am | Report abuse |
    • Jim

      Oh please, give the pro illegal/pc bs a rest. The reason does not matter. What matters is the tens of billions this country spends of honest taxpayer generated dollars to support these parasites.

      December 9, 2011 at 8:29 am | Report abuse |
    • Kay

      Most of them do it for money. They certainly don't do it follow the law.

      December 9, 2011 at 10:09 am | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      Illegals want to come to the United States because they know if they drop a kid when they get here, they will be able to get welfare, food stamps and a free education with Spanish speaking teachers paid for with hard earned tax money. There is a legal path for anyone wanting to emigrate to the USA, but it is inconvenient for the illegals to wait in line with the people who are coming here with good educations and will become a asset to the country. Not leechs like they are waiting for a handout.

      December 9, 2011 at 10:24 am | Report abuse |
      • Dale

        Here Here!!!

        December 9, 2011 at 11:27 am | Report abuse |
      • petz

        The concept of illegal aliens matches with the concept of illegally imported goods. If the goods (baby in this case) was **made** elsewhere it should be sent back or refused in some way. Why should we "buy" it, pay for it's maintenance and encourage it to happen by a lack of action?? It's a simple extrapolation. The term "anchor baby" means one thing, but applies to any race or ethnic background. Why is it offensive?

        December 9, 2011 at 1:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • ReddNeck

      Take your butt out of this country, you are the reason why we are failing in every aspect of the word America..

      December 9, 2011 at 10:30 am | Report abuse |
    • GrouchyKat

      They come here because this is the only place in the world where even the poor people are fat.

      December 11, 2011 at 7:28 pm | Report abuse |
  46. rider83

    "Words kill" You are one of the most ignorant and plain stupid people I have had the misfortune to encounter!! look down the barrel of a gun then pull the trigger, then have someone call you one of these killer words, be sure and let me know which hurt more moron!! If you are that weak you deserve everything you get!!

    December 9, 2011 at 12:48 am | Report abuse |
  47. Paul Ronco

    Mexico wouldn't take our trash.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:45 am | Report abuse |
  48. Paul Ronco

    If it makes you feel better, do it. But, personally, I think you'd get more of a "kick" out of it by saying it to someone's face when you've got that gun in your hands, just as did your white supremacist friends of old.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:40 am | Report abuse |
  49. Tom

    "people who are offended by it can go buy some tampons."

    Before saying anything else, you should take this advice. Anyway, I'm going to get a jar, say a bunch of hateful things into it, then seal it. Then I'll put the jar in a room with all of my loaded guns. Can you imagine the carnage? Because apparently, inanimate objects are extremely deadly of their own volition these days.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:28 am | Report abuse |
  50. CriticalThinker

    I find it interesting how the editor cropped this picture from http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/12/08/baby3.jpg to http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/12/08/baby2.jpg . The sign on top actually reads Sovereignty is NOT racism.....

    December 9, 2011 at 12:14 am | Report abuse |
    • Marie

      I also thought that was interesting. Leave it to CNN to take something out of context.

      December 9, 2011 at 10:22 am | Report abuse |
      • Notso

        I wondered why that sign was cut off, and I suspected there was an agenda behind it.

        December 9, 2011 at 12:31 pm | Report abuse |
  51. Joseph

    Umm... wrong! You are describing a poor father and a spoiled brat.

    December 8, 2011 at 11:56 pm | Report abuse |
  52. martin

    It's a term used by separatists who have no other means other than separating families.who happen to be hard working in order to help their child.

    December 8, 2011 at 11:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      if they are illegal they can take the child with them, it should not be a citizen, that is a distortion of the 14th. read the federalist papers to get the intention of the 14th from its creators.

      December 9, 2011 at 12:02 am | Report abuse |
  53. NODAT1

    Might be but how would the newborn baby know about the term anchor baby? Beside offspring of criminals who only conceived you to skirt our laws and take advantage of our society is way too long to put on a police report

    December 8, 2011 at 10:34 pm | Report abuse |
  54. Beverlee

    At what point did hurting someone's feelings with facts become a bad thing? Perhaps Americans need to luck up the word reality and learn it by heart...before we become Europe.

    December 8, 2011 at 10:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      Non-factual, you say? Well, let's see...

      A person who is here illegally has a child. According to the current interpretation of the 14th Amendment, citizenship is granted to that child.

      Now that the child is a citizen, it's morons like you who say the parents shouldn't be deported because they would be "separated from their child." Thus, making the child their anchor in this country. Thus, an anchor baby.

      You're welcome.

      December 9, 2011 at 12:39 am | Report abuse |
  55. Iusticia

    Since when does it become your "right" to illegally invade another country. Mexico and other Latin American countries have very strict laws against illegal immigration and yet believe it should be the right of the poor and uneducated in their countries to move to the U.S. illegally. This is really a form of demographic warfare by these governments. Getting enough of their people here illegally, and having a U.S. government which caters to the lawbreakers and makes them de facto "citizens", allows these goverments to expand their sphere of influence into U.S. politics and policy.

    December 8, 2011 at 10:11 pm | Report abuse |
    • Paulwisc

      There's no invasion. People are coming to find work, that's all. Your tinfoil hat is leaking a little prejudice.

      December 8, 2011 at 10:20 pm | Report abuse |
      • Krisylou

        That is true, but it can be accomplished LEGALLY!

        December 8, 2011 at 10:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • TxJim

      Mexico and other Latin American countries' laws dont apply here.. if you think their laws are bad then spend your life getting them changed..

      Any argument comparing our country to theirs is a losing argument.. our country has better opportunities which is why they come here..

      December 8, 2011 at 11:02 pm | Report abuse |
      • FFFF

        SO its ok to break the law?

        December 9, 2011 at 5:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Campbell

      Wow. Buy into conspiracy theories much?

      December 8, 2011 at 11:14 pm | Report abuse |
      • AlexM

        Google Mecha, Aztlan or NCLR and come on back. There are many others, but that should give you a start.

        December 9, 2011 at 4:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Paul Ronco

      >> This is really a form of demographic warfare by these governments.

      If immigrants coming here illegally is a form of "demographic warfare" by their respective governments, then the destruction of their rural livelihoods by NAFTA is a form of "economic warfare" that we waged first.

      December 9, 2011 at 12:28 am | Report abuse |
    • Brent

      You are absolutely right. No country should invade another! When did you say Bush and the US military was going to be charged for war crimes? I can't hear you..........

      December 9, 2011 at 8:19 pm | Report abuse |
  56. Beefburger

    Do you know what happens to an "illegal immigrant" in Mexico? If you don't then you need to find out. If you DO then you need to STFU hypocrites!

    December 8, 2011 at 10:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Johan S

      That argument makes no sense. If someone agreed with Mexican law, why would they leave Mexico?

      December 9, 2011 at 9:01 pm | Report abuse |
      • Haha

        Ask the Mexicans that, they seem to be leaving a country they like, for a country they hate.

        December 11, 2011 at 8:35 am | Report abuse |
    • Ramon F. Herrera

      Does this sheet work????

      December 10, 2011 at 2:30 am | Report abuse |
    • Ramon F. Herrera

      Actually, his argument makes sense, PROVIDED that he is planning to emigrate to Mexico... ILLEGALLY, of course.

      December 10, 2011 at 2:32 am | Report abuse |
  57. Beefburger

    STOP TRYING TO FLIP THE RACIST CARD WHEN IT IS A NATIONALIST ISSUE! It does not matter where you are from, if you are here illegally from Canada or the UK, France, etc. etc. etc. an nauseum YOU DO NOT BELONG HERE!

    December 8, 2011 at 10:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      so you can be a bigot for wanting the laws followed, hmmm

      December 8, 2011 at 10:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • daddy

      This is what La Raza says.... "The Race" (Mexican race).

      December 9, 2011 at 1:14 am | Report abuse |
    • Paulwisc

      Select laws. I'm betting poster himself has broken traffic laws, which are also misdemeanors.

      December 10, 2011 at 3:22 am | Report abuse |
  58. Martin

    Most of the people who claim to be offended by terms such as these then go ahead and listen to the exact same language at full volume in their rap music.

    We need to get back to calling a spade a spade, and quit worrying about people's sensibilities. If you feel that you can be hurt by language, you need to grow a pair.

    Let the flaming begin.

    December 8, 2011 at 10:00 pm | Report abuse |
  59. Beefburger

    I find people who USE "anchor babies" offensive. A certain sector of the population does not know how to wait their turn. This is also evident even in the grocery store and other venues where certain people have no regard for those who have been patiently waiting. The entire Chinese army is only 2 million strong. We have 20 million people in our country who have crossed our boarder illegally. Does it take being armed with rifles and grenades to be considered an invasion?

    December 8, 2011 at 9:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      I find illegal immigration offensive

      December 8, 2011 at 10:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Campbell

      I find people who can't spell border offensive.

      December 8, 2011 at 11:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • DebG

      Before political correctness invaded western countries, there was a term known as the "silent time bomb". The birth rates of Palestinians or Hispanics are examples. When you don't address birth rate disparities, coupled with illegal immigration in this country, you realize you've been overrun. It's the human version of roaches ....

      December 9, 2011 at 7:38 pm | Report abuse |
  60. johnfreyan

    Considering that 99% of you have ancestors who came here when the 'legal immigration' meant signing your name on a book on Ellis Island, the current freakout about 'illegal immigration' seem at best spectacularly ignorant of how our immigration system works today. I especially find the comments like "why don't they just do it legally?" almost as hilarious as "MY great-(nth) grandfather came here legally". It reveals the shockingly narrow perspective you people seem to have.

    I also like "Why don't they just get legalized?" too. It makes Marie Antoinette's "Let them eat cake" sound like an economics dissertation in comparison.

    December 8, 2011 at 9:54 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      we do take in over 1 million legal immigrents a year, more than any other country in the world. But we do have a quota, we can only handle so many uneducated people, right now all you have to do is sign some papers and pay some money and wait your turn, to bad so many dont take the time to do it correctly. If you have something to offer the line is shorter.

      December 8, 2011 at 10:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Deby

      John, thank you so very much for a refreshingly erudite and intelligent point of view. The unabashed bigotry that so many Americans suffer is appalling and is indicative of the severe anti-intellectualism rampant throughout our society. We have become a nation of haters; narrow-mindedness has become de rigeur. And particularly troublesome is the fact that most of it springs from "religious" people. America has become a very sad place indeed.

      December 8, 2011 at 11:46 pm | Report abuse |
  61. Henry

    Let's remember those" illegas" who have fought for the freedom of this country. As a matter of fact, one of the navy seals who kill osama bin laden is son of "illegal" immigrants. Therefore, it looks like immigrants are useful after all, don u think that you racist people

    December 8, 2011 at 9:52 pm | Report abuse |
  62. pogojo

    the federalist papers showed what the true meaning of the 14th was, it was not for illegals.

    December 8, 2011 at 9:38 pm | Report abuse |
  63. Check it out

    What legal ways? How is our system broken? When ever I ask someone to explain, leaving out amnesty, what is immigration reform? I have yet to receive a sound answer without all the emotional baggage that comes with answers from those who believe we should open our borders. Look up the gumball videos about trying to fix the poor's problems by allowing more and more legal immigration. You will find that all this will do is to bring down our way of life and do nothing to increase the value of all the poor in the world.

    December 8, 2011 at 9:07 pm | Report abuse |
  64. whoozit

    I have a new word for the dictionary, CRIMMIGRANT. Illegal Immigrants who do not follow the immigration laws of a nation.

    December 8, 2011 at 8:52 pm | Report abuse |

      That is great. Either you submit it to Wikipaedia or I will. Better yet, submit it to American Heritage Dictionary also

      December 8, 2011 at 9:18 pm | Report abuse |
  65. pogojo

    So if we do not have to obey laws, that gives us a green light to clean out the country? But i guess laws only apply to citizens.

    December 8, 2011 at 8:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Paulwisc

      So you're claiming you never speed, then?

      December 8, 2011 at 10:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • Bill

      Taking the concept of an anchor baby further, we should never send murderers, rapists, and other people who violate the law to jail?

      Why? For the same reason as crimmigrant hispanderers (whoozit, well done on the term) say that those who should not be here should not be deported ... because it would separate them from their families.

      December 9, 2011 at 12:42 am | Report abuse |
  66. Scott

    It is ridiculous to try to use the actions of Columbus, hundreds of years ago, to justify breaking the law now. I wasn't there. I didn't invade the US, or kill any native Americans. I believe in individual accountable. If Columbus was wrong, punish him. If illegal immigrants are breaking the law, they should be held accountable.

    December 8, 2011 at 8:39 pm | Report abuse |
  67. HarshReality

    I"ll repeat what I wrote earlier:

    The intent is to "rub in" if you will, the fact that the parent(s) Came Across the Border With Intent To Defraud. Nothing more, nothing less. The PARENTS are criminals, same as burgulars. Would you invite the burgular to stay in your house because they were from a "bad neiborhood" and wanted to live in yours instead, even though it wasn't theirs and they didn't earn it??

    To repeat: The parents are CRIMINALS. (no matter what else they may or may not be) We need to ammend the 14th ammendment to dis-allow all children of illegals the reward of citizenship. (Unless the parets(s) serves in the US military for the full term, and is discharged honorably)

    December 8, 2011 at 8:21 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ezo

      Ask the Native Americans who the illegal immigrants are.

      December 8, 2011 at 9:59 pm | Report abuse |
    • mezmama

      So very well said, Paul. Thank you.

      December 8, 2011 at 11:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Josh

      I think you're missing the plot: We don't really want to keep them out–we like to use their cheap labor. It's very easy to create wealth when you mix two separate economies. Another example is how Chinatown used to be in NYC.

      December 9, 2011 at 2:05 am | Report abuse |
    • elle


      December 9, 2011 at 12:15 pm | Report abuse |
      • the truth

        elle, leave the guy alone.... burgulars are the southern cousins of burglars and the cheese burglar...ok!

        December 9, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Report abuse |
      • HarshReality

        hehe . . . . Believe it or not, I used to be a good speller. Back before the advent of spell-checkers. . .

        December 15, 2011 at 6:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • mid

      Well said.

      December 12, 2011 at 12:19 am | Report abuse |
  68. Sinister

    In that case, lets put every offensive and derogatory terms including slang on the dictionary

    December 8, 2011 at 8:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dale

      Unfortunately, what you describe (putting slang into the dictionaries), with terms/"words" like "snuck" (Even Merriam Webster has this "word" included), is already "in progress"! The proper word/term is, of course; "sneaked".

      December 9, 2011 at 11:37 am | Report abuse |
  69. 4sanity

    The reason why American citizenship is conferred on people by place of birth and/or parental citizenship, is to ensure that children are not born State-less (initiated in large part as a consequence of the slave trade). But if you are threatened by a baby because its parents are here "illegally" then you have bigger problems in your life. I suggest an education on the US Constitution and American history might be a good place to start.

    December 8, 2011 at 7:56 pm | Report abuse |
  70. rshrop

    You have to love our democratic media. long live Fox News

    December 8, 2011 at 7:52 pm | Report abuse |
  71. blarney

    hey, I think duochetards is in the dictionary – it's not flagged as obscene either.... who knew?

    December 8, 2011 at 7:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • Franque

      Also not caught by CNN's filter: tatty fecking. And you can take that to the banque.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:48 pm | Report abuse |
  72. PlayfulDreamer

    You answered your own question. If you expected the Europeans to do it, it would be hypocritical not to expect the Mexicans to do it.

    December 8, 2011 at 7:28 pm | Report abuse |
  73. pogojo

    it is very offensive, many past generations fought and died to create this nation.

    December 8, 2011 at 7:25 pm | Report abuse |
  74. pogojo

    the 14th was not intended to give illegal immigrents citizenship, just a loophole. one of many that needs to be closed, "subject tothe jurisdiction of" key words, when illegal they are subject to the jurisdiction of the country they came from, we shhould just capture and send them back.

    December 8, 2011 at 7:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      the 14th stated it was for the african american children, not illegal immigrents.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:31 pm | Report abuse |
  75. RoflCatDown

    So, you're going to leave America and give it back to the native tribes then?

    December 8, 2011 at 7:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      the natives fought poorly and lost the war, are you saying all nations in the world give back the lands they won in wars?

      December 8, 2011 at 9:38 pm | Report abuse |
  76. Just Saying


    European anchor babies screaming about Latino anchor babies is 'convenient circular logic'. Remember, illegal immigration to these shores began in 1492...just ask NATIVE Americans!

    December 8, 2011 at 7:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • PlayfulDreamer

      Incorrect. Columbus never made it to the states, so your year is incorrect. Secondly, in order for something to be illegal, it has to be in contradiction to a standing legal code. Tell me which legal code it was that the European settlers were breaking when they arrived here?

      The point is, no country can be invaded or have its laws broken where no country exists. We can condemn historical peoples until the sunsets but that doesn't help your argument–nor does it help resolve the ongoing debate.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:15 pm | Report abuse |
    • PlayfulDreamer

      Also, if you could please just reply to the comments you're referring to? That would be a great help.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      there was no country back then, no laws, no nation, no nothing but indians with tents, now 400 yrs later when we have built one of the best countries on the planet, people want to claim it was not legal, we won the war against the indians, they lost, we won, get over it.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:18 pm | Report abuse |
      • RoflCatDown

        The indians live in India. Unless you're saying we invaded India, and that we should probably cede this land back to them.

        December 8, 2011 at 7:35 pm | Report abuse |
      • pogojo

        so every country in the world should give the land up that they won in wars, give me a break.

        December 8, 2011 at 7:38 pm | Report abuse |
      • RoflCatDown

        That isn't what I said at all. I simply suggest that your anger is pathetic considering your own wealth and prosperity is based upon the massacre of people who were there first by people who felt their lives were of no value because A) they weren't white, and B) weren't Christian.

        While I'd like to see meaningful and useful immigration reform... (The process is severely broken.) The truth is that these people are in pretty dire straits. Let's face it, being poor here is not anywhere like being poor there. Even the poor here mostly have running water, clean sanitation services, and floors that aren't dirt.

        I personally know all about the various cultural, legal, and criminal issues that arise with their influx. However most of them really just want a better life, and there's no reasonable way they can even get into the country legally.

        December 8, 2011 at 7:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • kory clayton

      Actually in 1492 that wasn't at these shores....Christopher Columbus discovered the area around Haiti not the the US which so many believe.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • 4sanity

      For something to be illegal, there has to be a standing legal code. Says who ? But OK, European settlers came from countries that already had written legal codes and were recognized by each other. Invasion and forced displacement would have been considered illegal and met by force.

      Although American native people did not have a written legal code, they certainly did respond by resisting with force and engaging in treaty negotiations i.e. they were recognized as having land rights. The fact that one side unilaterally, systematically and recurrently broke their treaty obligations makes European immigrant (and their "American" descendents) protestations about illegal immigration a case of hand washing and hypocrisy.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:51 pm | Report abuse |
      • RoflCatDown

        I'm sorry, how do you know that they didn't have a written legal code? And, where is it established that a code must be written for it to be law?

        Why do you feel the need to make up random adhoc justifications that aren't rooted anywhere in fact in order to assuage your own guilt?

        Or, is it morally OK to beat someone to death because you didn't see a written law when you entered the country that said, "Beating people to death is illegal!" ??

        Otherwise why isn't there a rash of people who just wander up to a person at a resort and beat them to death to take their lounge chair? Personally, I've been told that murder is not only bad, but illegal. I've never actually seen the laws in every state that say it is, yet I assume these laws exist because it's the humane and civil thing to do.

        December 8, 2011 at 8:13 pm | Report abuse |
  77. PlayfulDreamer

    As a Hispanic-American, I resent the idea that because I'm anti-illegal immigration that I'm somehow racist or bigoted. I sympathize with people who want nothing but a better life, but this is an argument based on principle–not my feelings.

    I agree that immigration policy in the United States is restrictive (but very progressive compared to most western countries), but that's no excuse for the laws to be broken. I disagree with the law that says I cannot take what I want, when I want–even if I desperately need whatever it is I'm trying to take. Say you're holding an apple. It's your apple; you paid for it or did the work to produce it. Either way, it's yours. Do I have any right to take it from you just because I'm hungry? Or because my child is hungry? You may feel morally compelled to give me the apple, and that would be an amazing thing, but the law is on your side should I choose to steal it from you.

    Should I just disregard the law and expect sympathy then?

    December 8, 2011 at 7:11 pm | Report abuse |
  78. DesertKitty

    Applause, applause.....People can change the terminology all they want but that won't change intent. Whatever the new term is, it will still be used with the same intent, whether it be to provide a simple description or a put-down. Changing the word is not going to change the soul of the person using it.

    December 8, 2011 at 7:10 pm | Report abuse |
    • HarshReality

      The intent is to "rub in" if you will, the fact that the parent(s) Came Across the Border With Intent To Defraud. Nothing more, nothing less. The PARENTS are criminals, same as burgulars. Would you invite the burgular to stay in your house because they were from a "bad neiborhood" and wanted to live in yours instead, even though it wasn't theirs and they didn't earn it??

      To repeat: The parents are CRIMINALS. (no matter what else they may or may not be) We need to ammend the 14th ammendment to dis-allow all children of illegals the reward of citizenship. (Unless the parets(s) serves in the US military for the full term, and is discharged honorably)

      December 8, 2011 at 8:20 pm | Report abuse |
  79. pogojo

    countries borders are formed by war, 400 yrs ago there was no country, and we did go to war with the few people who lived here to create this nation, they lost, get over it, there is a country here now and we have laws, respect them.

    December 8, 2011 at 7:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • RoflCatDown

      So, as long as they murder you and form a new country it's OK?

      They had societies, languages, laws, and customs. What more is there to a government than a group of people who choose to abide by a group of laws? Oh, right, you have to recognize that those laws are legitimate and that the government is recognized by another government as being such.

      So, by choosing to dismiss their rightful claims saying they were a bunch of individuals wandering about without culture, heritage, language, religion, and laws of their own.... Kind of like people who enter the country without documentation and then attempt to assimilate into our society.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:32 pm | Report abuse |
  80. me

    really? Where is the condemnation.....anchor? Sounds like you got some stuff going on in your head. Take it for what it is, a term for a definition. The definition being, illegal aliens who birth in the U.S. with the hope of staying permanently.

    December 8, 2011 at 7:05 pm | Report abuse |
  81. pogojo

    ancor baby referrs to a legal immagrent that is not a citizen, and has a child here in america in hopes it will help their standing, when an illegal has a baby here in america they are not even ancor babies.

    December 8, 2011 at 7:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • PlayfulDreamer

      Wrong. The term specifically applies to the child, hence "baby." That doesn't, however, make it inherently offensive.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      of course im talking the baby lol.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:16 pm | Report abuse |
  82. PlayfulDreamer

    No one is condemning them. However, you will argue that if we penalize the parents for breaking the law by deporting them, that we're hurting the child. Convenient circular logic, I guess.

    If the child and parents had a choice as to the future of the child (they go with the parents or stay here under the care of a guardian or of the state), would that be a compromise? Something tells me, no, you'll just argue that it still hurts the child, or that the child is too young to make the choice.

    So how, then, do we enforce the law and not hurt the child? What's your solution?

    Or do you just disregard the law when it suits you?

    December 8, 2011 at 7:04 pm | Report abuse |
  83. pogojo

    we do take in over 1 million legal immigrents a year already, with illegals they are uneducated and have very little to offer the US, we do need legal immigrents that have skills , but millions of illegal uneducated need to go.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:57 pm | Report abuse |
    • Teamosil

      Economically speaking that isn't true. As an economy gets richer, it creates more high end information jobs. Those jobs produce much more GDP than manual labor jobs. But an economy can't survive with just high end information economy jobs. You still need people to tend the crops and haul the trash and whatnot. The ideal scenario is that we continue to lift our citizen work force up into higher and higher levels of jobs while letting whoever wants to fill in the lower end jobs we leave behind. For example, at this point we've effectively left migrant fruit picking behind. No citizens are willing to do that, and frankly it would be a waste of their educations to have them do that. Even a jr. high education prepares you to do something more valuable for the economy than that, like working at a McDonalds even is many times more valuable to the economy than picking fruit by hand. Now, we don't want that process just wide open, unregulated and untaxed. That's why we need a guest worker program. But trying to keep all jobs in the country for ourselves actually would hurt us a lot more than it would help us.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • PlayfulDreamer

      Arguments like this don't help your overriding argument. Neither do generalizations about illegal immigrants being uneducated, because it's simply untrue. Some are, yes, some aren't. Just like us legal citizens.

      While we fall on the same side of the debate, I simply won't support an argument that dehumanizes anyone or makes gross inaccurate statements.

      December 8, 2011 at 7:07 pm | Report abuse |
    • Alicia

      The most successful mexican business is the anchor mill. They breed for the sole purpose of obtaining benefits

      December 8, 2011 at 9:15 pm | Report abuse |
  84. PlayfulDreamer

    Your problem, Tea, is that you think that there's any hatred at all–that because people expect others (and their parents) to obey the law, that they must be racist or bigoted.

    It is possible to be anti-illegal immigration and not be a racist bigot, you know.

    As a side note, I could certainly hate the child if it cried a lot. Ever get stuck behind one on a plane? I don't even have to know what the child looks like to be unhappy with it.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:48 pm | Report abuse |
  85. angryed

    So, in your opinion EVERYONE who wishes to live in America should have the right to do so......interesting concept....sounds very liberal democrat to me, in other words it makes no sense at all

    December 8, 2011 at 6:47 pm | Report abuse |
  86. angryed

    So you feel everyone in the world who wishes to come to America and live should feel free to do so?? If not then guess what, the ones who do it anyway are ILLEGAL..is that simple enough for you??

    December 8, 2011 at 6:44 pm | Report abuse |
  87. Alicia

    I know, I noticed it too. A few months ago they did the same thing with a pic of muslims praying and they cropped it into a heart shape. Hilarious the way they constantly push the anti American, pro illegal agenda and never write about Americans who are victimized by illegals and anchors on a daily basis

    December 8, 2011 at 6:44 pm | Report abuse |
  88. PlayfulDreamer

    Mm. Nice generalizations. Try not to generalize when you don't want others to. That's no way to stand on a solid argument.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:40 pm | Report abuse |
  89. Dee

    Where have you been for the last 200 years, surely not here.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:37 pm | Report abuse |
  90. PlayfulDreamer

    Love the reverse-racism.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:36 pm | Report abuse |
  91. Dee

    The term has an origin and is used to describe illegals giving bitth in the U.S. I don't care whether you approve or not, it is a real problem. All you A.H. presidents and politicians who ignored the problem for twenty years or more have no one to blame except yourselves.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • Josh

      What's the problem?

      December 9, 2011 at 2:06 am | Report abuse |
      • firehorseme

        Josh – I totally agree.

        December 9, 2011 at 1:01 pm | Report abuse |
  92. Teamosil

    There is always the question of how much of the over the top fury about illegal immigration is really based purely on the fact that they broke the law and how much of it is actually just hatred for people of a different ethnic background, and normally there is no way to know for sure. But when that hatred spills over on to their kids, who did not break the law, all that leaves is the hatred for people from their ethnic background. This issue separates out the racists from the people who are just really worked up about immigration status.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:34 pm | Report abuse |
  93. Just Saying

    Illegal immigration - started in 1492!

    December 8, 2011 at 6:31 pm | Report abuse |
    • PlayfulDreamer

      Nice try. First of all, Columbus never made it as far as the United States proper in 1492. Second of all, in order for an action to be illegal, it must be in contradiction to legal code. Tell me what legal code was violated when the European settlers made landfall in the northeast?

      Are you also trying to say that the people born here in 2011 are guilty of the actions of people 400 years ago? I was born here. I grew up here. I worked here. I lived, loved, and laughed here. Am I not a native?

      December 8, 2011 at 6:36 pm | Report abuse |
    • ginaderin

      Ok. Let's for a moment I support the ludicrous argument that the pilgrims were the first offenders of the boarder law that was not in place yet. Why do you think all of us white people come from the original pilgrims? My maternal grandmother came to this country through Ellis Island from Russia and my paternal great grandparents came from Sweden and Ireland also through Ellis Island with my grandfather. They took nothing from this Country, they just gave back. They even changed their last names to less ethnic and more American sounding names. So how can you broad brush us in with bunch of people from England?

      June 9, 2012 at 3:05 am | Report abuse |
  94. Sheryl

    You're right Playfuldreamer! That was the very first observation I made when I got on this page! Deceptive advertising! It is a cheap trick to get people to read! The assumption must be that Americans will NOT read unless they are drawn in by political images.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • PlayfulDreamer

      That, or they're hoping you'll subconsciously equate anti-illegal immigration policy/ideology as being racist.

      December 8, 2011 at 6:32 pm | Report abuse |
  95. Just Saying

    How come white people didn't just "fix their own countries" instead of emigrating to America – without the consent of NATIVE Americans???

    December 8, 2011 at 6:27 pm | Report abuse |
  96. robert

    i realize that at one time or another we were the " illegals". but..... after the rules of immagration were written we were no longer illegals. since the rules were written anyone that comes into this country or any other with out the proper papers ARE illegals. so send them back to respective countries..... NO BLANKET AMNESTY.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:26 pm | Report abuse |
  97. mousecar50

    It is a racist term. I was called that as a child and most of my family has been in North America for several hundred years. The person thought I looked Mexican.... Peace......

    December 8, 2011 at 6:26 pm | Report abuse |
  98. jdevil1735

    We have a border and every other nation in the world heavily defends their border against ILLEGAL immigrantion. The US has every right to do the same. Every nation on earth has been "invaded" at one point or another. Does William the Conqueror ring any bells?

    December 8, 2011 at 6:24 pm | Report abuse |
  99. Double Standard?

    The word would only be offensive if it were directed at the child in a condesending way. If it were used saying Mrs. X had an anchor baby then how is it offensive, or at least more offensive then to say "Mrs. X had a baby here to gain citizen status for said baby so that, when/if she is ever caught in the country illigally she and her family are significantely less likely to be deported." One takes two seconds to say, the other 20 seconds: one is using the word and the other is using the definition of that word.

    Also, all the posters refering to the inncoent child who has never seen another counrty: 1) many americans have never seen another country and 2) the child is innocent but isn't the bigger problem that the parents don't seem to care about what their ILLEGAL actions have on their children and 3) If we can't do X because it will affect the innocent child then how can we ever dare to put any parent in jail for committing any crime? Deporting the parent and allowing the child to stay here or return to where they should have been all along is actually better then throwing a childs mother or father (especially when a single parent) in jail. In the second case the child is forced to growup without the parent, has his/her life changed drastically and, if they only had a single parent, must go into the system and likely be removed from where everything they knew. In the first case they have the otion to be deported with the parents and only lose that which they know (still keep citizenship so can return when and if they want when old enough to do so alone).

    While it is not the childrens fault and they can not be blamed for their parents actions, there is no way to prevent them from suffering hardship based on their parents actions without giving ALL parents free passes for any crime.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:24 pm | Report abuse |
    • rshrop

      This is probably the only rational post that I have read about this subject

      December 8, 2011 at 7:48 pm | Report abuse |
    • Check it out

      Exactly, people forget we have put both American born parents, that have American born children, in prison for other crimes. So why do people who break the law coming to this country illegally feel that because they have a child who was born here?

      December 8, 2011 at 9:24 pm | Report abuse |
  100. macphile

    Going out of your way to offend people is one way to go, sure. I do wonder if you know the difference between midget and dwarf, though? People use them interchangeably, but they're not synonyms.

    December 8, 2011 at 6:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Dennis

      "Midget" is a blanket term to describe any person of small size – whether due to a disease/defect or not.
      "Dwarf" is a medical term to describe more accurately the cause, i.e. achondroplastic dwarfism wherein the epyphesial plates do not form properly.

      December 8, 2011 at 6:29 pm | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5