.
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. Bill

    The term 'anchor baby' is obviously offensive to those who support illegal immigration. The concept of having an 'anchor baby' is offensive to those of us who oppose illegal immigration. Having an 'anchor baby' is using an innocent human life to perpetrate a crime.

    December 10, 2011 at 5:04 am | Report abuse |
    • Honest Citizen

      Hey Steve. Democommunists say that those Illegals are taking ONLY jobs that tax paying citizens will NOT do. Which is a bold face lie, even according to your own post.

      December 10, 2011 at 11:20 am | Report abuse |
    • Steve

      I never said they aren't taking jobs that Americans would do, I just said to compete, get a better job. And after that, he can compete with me by getting a much better job.

      December 10, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Report abuse |
  2. c

    doesn't that seem kind of ironic? That this whole article is about trying to be more politically correct not using derrogatory or stereotypes to classify people, and the first thing someone does is comment about churchgoing bags..

    December 10, 2011 at 4:20 am | Report abuse |
  3. c

    doesn't that seem kind of ironic? That this whole article is about trying to be more politically correct not using derrogatory or stereotypes to classify people, and the first thing someone does is comment about churchgoing bags

    December 10, 2011 at 4:16 am | Report abuse |
  4. Ramon F. Herrera

    The following illustration should be required in order to understand the politics of immigration:

    http://patriot.net/~ramon/misc/GOP-Stake.gif

    (the donkey is in full agreement with the business car)

    December 10, 2011 at 3:16 am | Report abuse |
  5. fiskenmann

    True, the babies are American citizens but not the parents. Better to have the government support the child than support the parents as well. Send the parents back!!!

    December 10, 2011 at 2:55 am | Report abuse |
  6. Ramon F. Herrera

    Insult all you want the parents, but, must you insult the babies? I thought you were the party of family.

    December 10, 2011 at 2:47 am | Report abuse |
  7. Ramon F. Herrera

    We ARE already annexing Mexico... every bit as Mexico in annexing us, in slow motion. Heard of NAFTA?

    December 10, 2011 at 2:37 am | Report abuse |
  8. DIM

    Never crossed my mind that in this day and age that so many americans are still biggots and uneducated... these are the same folks that would welcome a rich immigrant, but treat a poor ones like dirt... If you hate China and Mexico that much, how about stop buying ANYTHING manufactured in China and stop eating ANYTHING prepared by Mexicans (that work in your favorite restaurant). And I will say more, the US is not FIRST WORLD because of you fat rednecks... but it is because ALL top talents in American Colleges and Companies are IMMIGRANTS... Go learn Evolutionism first before you open your mouth next time...

    December 10, 2011 at 2:08 am | Report abuse |
    • fiskenmann

      @DIM....."Never crossed my mind that in this day and age that so many americans are still biggots and uneducated." ".....because of you fat rednecks." LOL.....includes you.

      December 10, 2011 at 4:02 am | Report abuse |
    • Paul

      A classic cluelessly ironic posting. Wow are you dumb...
      Next time have some with a brain read what you are about to post, and warn you if it reveals your dimness.

      December 10, 2011 at 6:24 am | Report abuse |
  9. Mary Stark

    It's only offensive to those who are spitting out the anchor babies. To the rest of the (legal) population, it states a fact. Illegal aliens cross the border to have their babies in the U. S. where they will be eligible for food stamps and welfare. It's about time that birth in the U.S. should not be the criteria for bestowing citizenship.

    December 10, 2011 at 1:22 am | Report abuse |
    • MashaSobaka

      Um, no. I'm an American-born childless citizen and I consider the term "anchor baby" to be very offensive. Try again.

      December 11, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
      • Why?

        MashaSobaks – Why are you offended? I'm curious as to exactly what about it is offensive? Does the idea that the baby will have that stigma his whole life offend you? Does the idea that the parents of this child will hear it and know that YOU know that they had the child here specifically to get benefits and get help taking care of their child?

        And for those out there that say "they came here for a better life" – I completely get it. Life really sucks in other place (heck, life sucks many places here in America, but those people may not have the opportunities to move somewhere better)...however, if that is the only reason and they're willing to work hard, why not REJECT the freebies associated with baby-delivery? That would show truly that you're not here to leech off the anchor baby benefits...just sayin'.

        December 11, 2011 at 8:35 pm | Report abuse |
  10. Joe Williams

    What part of ILLEGAL do you not understand !!!!! No government benefits , no medical care (except emergency) ,for anyone in this country iilleaglly. Also unless the birth mother is in this country legally ....no automatic citizenship !!!!!!

    December 10, 2011 at 12:24 am | Report abuse |
  11. Angry

    Yep, the practice of cranking out an anchor baby is pretty offensive.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:50 pm | Report abuse |
  12. Rick1948

    It'd be nice if just one of these people who keep screaming for a secure border to come up with any PRACTICAL method of accomplishing that. Like prohibition, it is unenforceable. So, we have to think of something else.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:38 pm | Report abuse |
  13. Bill

    I t's supposed to be offensive. It accurately describes a situation whereby someone comes to the country in contravention to its laws and then seeks to use their progeny as a means to stay. I was afraid those offended by the term were too stupid to get the point. I am glad that they do.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • texaslady2

      Amen! What is truly offensive is our government's unwillingness to root out and throw out all illegal aliens and their anchor babies!

      December 10, 2011 at 2:27 am | Report abuse |
  14. jmpjdx

    God forbid that anyone offend an illegal immigrant.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Rita Ann

      I also marvel at those who are whining about the rights of the illegal immigrants. Excuse me, you folks are ILLEGAL. You have NO RIGHTS. You want your rights? Go back to your own countries. Legal rights belong to those who are LEGAL.

      December 11, 2011 at 4:09 am | Report abuse |
  15. queenbee10

    To be an anchor baby, Obama's mother would have had to have been an illegal. She was an American citizen. Not only that, she was a WASP. Reading is not only fundemental, actual reading comprehension is mandatory.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:05 pm | Report abuse |
  16. mickey1313

    Obamas Mother is and was a citizen, he is not 1st gen american, and your stateing that just proves you are one of the ignorant fools that buys the toxic lies spewed from the mouths of the gop pundits.

    December 9, 2011 at 10:59 pm | Report abuse |
  17. yneemee

    I thought demokrats were supposed to be opposed to human trafficking – allowing illegals to come in the country to work at McDonald's, Target or the local farm is human trafficking, isn't it ?????

    December 9, 2011 at 10:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • queenbee10

      I think the term is "global migration" for that one world society or Nafta compliant migration.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:03 pm | Report abuse |
  18. ljcjec

    Check your facts. Obama's mother was born a US citizen in Wichita, Kansas in 1942 and died a US citizen in Hawaii in 1995.

    December 9, 2011 at 9:18 pm | Report abuse |
  19. Bill

    Offensive? Tough. I find it offensive that criminals are catered to and coddled. Rights? How about a speedy trial, a bus ride to the border, and a healthy boot in the butt to help them cross?

    December 9, 2011 at 9:04 pm | Report abuse |
    • LATIN LOVER

      Your ancestors would be the ones leaving back to Europe with a kick in the butt!!!

      December 9, 2011 at 9:52 pm | Report abuse |
    • mickey1313

      I agree, the fact that we are one of the only nations on earth with this loophole is unexusable. We should put a flat ban on "showing" mothers from entering the states. Also we need to make it that you have a legal ID (US) to enter a hospital and be treated. No ID, you are kicked out to die on the road.

      December 9, 2011 at 10:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • TiredOf Illegals

      Great post Bill and I aagree 1000%!

      December 10, 2011 at 11:01 am | Report abuse |
  20. sherryh

    Anchor babies are offensive.

    December 9, 2011 at 8:54 pm | Report abuse |
  21. rafbbic

    Nuh, uh.

    December 9, 2011 at 8:43 pm | Report abuse |
  22. Patrick

    It's only offensive if you are one. Call a spade a spade – if your parents ILLEGALLY immigrated into this country and had you on American soil – you're an anchor baby. In my opinion, the whole lot should be deported – parents & anchor babies. If the term anchor baby offends some people, it's because it's true & cuts too close to home. Wonder if I should have used the term "spade"? Is that offensive too?...LOL

    December 9, 2011 at 8:34 pm | Report abuse |
  23. Patrick

    Anchor baby is one of a few choice definitions to describe that mope occupying the White House – sounds accurate to me. Still not convinced he's in the country legally...LOL

    December 9, 2011 at 8:29 pm | Report abuse |
    • chippy1

      how'd you get into the country?

      December 10, 2011 at 9:54 am | Report abuse |
  24. Boba Fett

    "Anchor Baby" is not offensive. The fact that people make babies for the sole purpose of gaining benefits from the U.S. IS offensive. The ones who get pregnant just for the reason defined in the dictionary ought to face jail time, and be deported.

    December 9, 2011 at 8:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Norman

      anti-ILLEGAL immigrants dumdum-dont cloud the issue with lies-no one is against legal immigrants

      December 9, 2011 at 8:25 pm | Report abuse |
    • Wallace

      Anchor baby-the act by illegal alien thievs, of yearly reproduction by any number of males, for the sole purpose of gaining taxpayer driven benefits.

      December 9, 2011 at 9:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Paulwisc

      Norman, bigots don't usually make the distinction, and neither do the laws they've enacted. Try to draw distinctions all you want, but this is all about fear and hatred of brown-skinned people.

      December 10, 2011 at 3:13 am | Report abuse |
  25. Bob

    A excellent addition to the dictionary! Accurate and relevant for our time.

    December 9, 2011 at 7:08 pm | Report abuse |
  26. Bob

    Then get a stick and do it.

    December 9, 2011 at 7:07 pm | Report abuse |
  27. Jonathan

    Yes, it is a disparaging term. It's supposed to be. Like illegal immigrant is a disparaging term. It's supposed to be. It's supposed to drive home the point pretty clearly that they're not welcome here. And yes, anchor babies are offensive – it's an offense that these parents are using their children as blackmail to try and get away with doing something illegal. They're using them as the equivalent of human shields, hiding from the law behind them the way a criminal hides from a bullet behind a hostage. It's offensive that we're letting them.

    December 9, 2011 at 7:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Norman

      paul, youre an illegal huh? youre at leats a bigoit-many illegal immigranst are white and black-dont assume all illegals are brown-what an idiot

      December 9, 2011 at 8:26 pm | Report abuse |
    • texaslady2

      Exactly. All illegal aliens should rounded up, along with their anchor babies, and sent home. No way should the little "anchors" be given US citizenship.

      December 10, 2011 at 2:34 am | Report abuse |
    • Paulwisc

      Umm, no, Norman, my people have been here far longer than yours.

      Your posts have aptly defined your ignorance and hatred. We know exactly what you are. Good job.

      December 10, 2011 at 3:18 am | Report abuse |
  28. Sandler

    I thought that was the point of the word. I don't like it and I think its horrible. Is this news worthy? I looked up in the dictionary that the word "happy" is a positive word. I also looked up trailer trash. Apparently that is an offensive word for people who live in trailers. Of course, I don't find it offensive because I don't live in a trailer (sarcasm, hint, hint).

    Anchor baby is an offensive term. Everyone knows that but we have freedom of speech in this country. If people want to use it, it is their prerogative. However, people also have a right to criticize those who use it.

    December 9, 2011 at 6:44 pm | Report abuse |
  29. pogojo

    All i know is it is only countries that were created by the white people that are leaders in the world, the nations run by non white are all falling apart, look at the middle east, south america. Fix your nations dont destroy ours.

    December 9, 2011 at 6:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Ben Canard

      Yea. Europe's doing great and America is at the top of its game.

      December 9, 2011 at 7:34 pm | Report abuse |
    • Josh

      "All i know is it is only countries that were created by the white people that are leaders in the world, the nations run by non white are all falling apart, look at the middle east, south america. Fix your nations dont destroy ours." @pogojo All I know is that you sound like a racist. As a Marine I find your views offensive and maybe if there were less ignorant people like you spewing hatred maybe less of my brothers and sisters would be dying to protect your freedom. Illegal immigrants should be dealt with, but their children shouldn't be punished for their actions they are only kids and are innocent. You wouldn't want someone being hateful to your children because of something you did would you?

      December 9, 2011 at 8:08 pm | Report abuse |
  30. goneballistic

    Sam, what is hateful and/or about the frustration with a government that is unwilling and unable to keep our border secure and enforce the law? We do live under the Rule of Law, or at least we are supposed to.
    It is your post that is hateful and ignorant. Whenever someone hurls insults at their opposition, it is indicative of a small minded person who is not smart enough to express themselves in a constructive manner.

    December 9, 2011 at 6:06 pm | Report abuse |
  31. jeepster455

    Hey Sam, these people are sucking the blood dry from the American taxpayers. You bet the term anchor baby is offensive, it's offensive to all those job seeking, tax-paying American citizens who pay through the nose for these people to defraud our social services which are meant for AMERICAN people who paid into it. Wherever you come from, do you think your country would be as generous to criminal illegal invaders?

    December 9, 2011 at 6:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sam

      The idea that babies who happen to be born here of people who were not citizens at the time are sucking your failing country dry is paranoid stereotyping. This kind of scapegoating of the least powerful is common when a country is falling apart. Kick the ones below you and let the ones at the top continue to scam and exploit any way they want with your dysfunctional and unsustainable economic structure. The people just above you (because apparently you are searching for a job at the moment) are saying, "geez, why don't those lazy unemployed people get a damn job and stop sucking our country dry. Anyone can get a job. If you really want a job you would get one." And the people just above the working poor are saying, "geez what's wrong with those people that they can't budget their money and make ends meet with less than a living wage. They should get a better job." And so it goes. In the meantime, the income gap between you and the rich has grown astronomically in recent decades and I talk to Americans who look me in the eye and say with a straight face, "Rich people need more money. We should tax them less. We have to do everything we can to make sure they get more money". Unbelievable. Anyway, I think the vitriole Americans have about border security and "aliens" is displaced rage about your own diminishing power.

      December 9, 2011 at 8:04 pm | Report abuse |
  32. FFFF

    Please leave..I guarantee you are white.Look how society has taught you to hate yourself and feel guilt ridden.....pathetic..I will be more than happy to help you leave....

    December 9, 2011 at 5:52 pm | Report abuse |
  33. Billy

    I wish I was born in Canada, I hate the US sometimes.

    December 9, 2011 at 5:37 pm | Report abuse |
    • dianasbob

      Don't let the door hit you where Someone better than you split you.

      December 9, 2011 at 7:08 pm | Report abuse |
  34. Jerry

    Shall I go get the stick?

    December 9, 2011 at 5:37 pm | Report abuse |
  35. Joe from Kalispell

    Sure it is offensive. It is society's way to use offensive language to display displeasure at an individual or group's behavior that out of the norm.

    By being politically correct we have plugged that pressure relief valve and we are seeing worse and more extreme crimes because of it.

    December 9, 2011 at 5:21 pm | Report abuse |
  36. mn_test347

    What is the non-offensive term for "anchor baby"?

    December 9, 2011 at 5:20 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jerry

      Criminal

      December 9, 2011 at 5:38 pm | Report abuse |
  37. mn_test347

    I thought this article was about the 200 lb third grader.

    December 9, 2011 at 5:11 pm | Report abuse |
  38. Charles E. Rouse

    Both the dictionary and the Immigration group are correct that the term is offensive. I am continually appalled and surprised that at this late date in history my country is so awash in ignorance and straight up bigotry.

    December 9, 2011 at 4:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • conrad

      I have to agree with you. And its made worse by all justification and white-wash suggesting it isn't racism. That is exactly what this is.

      December 9, 2011 at 5:10 pm | Report abuse |
      • CSnord

        It is not racism. An anchor baby can be born to any illegal - Mexican, Chinese, Norwegian, etc. The term applies to the offspring of illegal immigrants born in the US. Period. There is no race involved. The term is not offensive - it is descriptive. What IS offensive is that we even need a term for something that should not even exist.

        December 9, 2011 at 6:21 pm | Report abuse |
      • echo40

        Conrad... You have to explain to why this is racism. I am not white btw. If a law apply to everyone equally, how is it racism. Only when law does not treat everyone the same, then it is wrong. We don't assume all illegals are Latinos. The fact is whenever we talk about illegals, Latinos automatically assume we are talking about the. Why? Could it be that they know 75% of illegals are Latinos? And cry racism is the only ways they can divert attention. See my statistics below .

        December 9, 2011 at 6:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jen06

      “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.”
      ============================

      when is the truth is offensive?

      only when leftists don’t like it

      Here’s two offensive terms: “Democrat” and “Obama supporter.”

      December 9, 2011 at 5:17 pm | Report abuse |
    • pogojo

      im offended by illegal immigration.

      December 9, 2011 at 6:43 pm | Report abuse |
  39. Jbird

    The right tends to misuse the phrase in the worst of ways. SO yes its offensive.

    December 9, 2011 at 4:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • dianasbob

      Hey jbird – is that a moniker for convict? shut up and serve your time

      December 9, 2011 at 7:11 pm | Report abuse |
  40. Mr. Zippy

    I for one do not consider WASP a slur... rather proud of it, actually.

    December 9, 2011 at 4:36 pm | Report abuse |
  41. Shrike

    I too find anchor babies and the illegal semi life forms intensely offensive.

    December 9, 2011 at 4:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jbird

      All life is precious. Youre just soulless.

      December 9, 2011 at 4:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Wendy

        Your heart can only bleed so much. At some point, you have to tap-out...when will enough be enough? Maybe if the line wasnt crossed illegally in the first place and the laws we have on the books were enforced from the beginning, we would not be having the issues we have. Yes, all life is precious, but it can be precious in its native land...legally.

        December 9, 2011 at 4:53 pm | Report abuse |
  42. DwayneL

    They are offensive! They suck off the govt. teet and drain from real Americans!! Close the borders and deport them all!

    December 9, 2011 at 4:16 pm | Report abuse |
    • Sybaris

      Unlike white trash citizens huh?

      December 9, 2011 at 4:43 pm | Report abuse |
      • Wendy

        And you think white people are racist? I wonder if "white trash" is listed as a defamatory term in this dictionary.

        December 9, 2011 at 4:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jbird

        Amen. At least one other person here hasnt been corrupted so much, that they stopped realizing the value of a human life. I think we have bred a bunch of sociopaths in this country, apparently.

        December 9, 2011 at 4:49 pm | Report abuse |
  43. gino

    I've always found anchor babies offensive.

    December 9, 2011 at 4:10 pm | Report abuse |
  44. D

    Wow, speculate wildly much? That's a lotta BS in there.

    December 9, 2011 at 4:03 pm | Report abuse |
  45. Jimbo Jambo

    One thing is for sure, those anchor baby mamas sure do blow up like balloons real quick.

    December 9, 2011 at 3:59 pm | Report abuse |
  46. D

    Actually, you CAN polish a turd. Didn't you see that episode of Mythbusters?

    December 9, 2011 at 3:56 pm | Report abuse |
  47. The Fonz

    USA USA USA

    December 9, 2011 at 3:52 pm | Report abuse |
  48. Jerry Sandusky

    I'll take care of the children.

    December 9, 2011 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
  49. Mark Lloret

    Immigration laws have changed tremendously since the 1970s when a child born in the U.S. could request legalization for his/her parents. At present, a U.S. Citizen has to be at least 21 years old and have an income above certain guidelines in order to request permanent residency (Green Card) for his/her parents. Citizenship for immigrants could eventually be achieved, but only after waiting an additional five years and passing a difficult exam on US history and English.

    December 9, 2011 at 3:51 pm | Report abuse |
    • Petardo

      Also, if the parents entered the US illegally (EWI) they can't get their permanent residence (Green card) even if the US Citizen kid files for it.

      December 9, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
  50. augustghost

    How can it be offensive if the people it is directed at can't understand english?

    December 9, 2011 at 3:47 pm | Report abuse |
    • WE HAVE A WINNER

      DING DING DING

      December 9, 2011 at 3:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • wilcu

      English B%^CH!

      December 9, 2011 at 4:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • Jules Winnfield

      ENGLISH, DO YOU SPEAK IT?

      December 9, 2011 at 4:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • Petardo

      Absolutely, I speak and write English perfectly.

      December 9, 2011 at 4:05 pm | Report abuse |
    • Petardo

      So, now my comment in Spanish is awaiting moderation. But, how can if be offensive then if you don't understand it?

      December 9, 2011 at 4:07 pm | Report abuse |
      • Wendy

        Can I post on the mexican version of CNN in English?

        December 9, 2011 at 4:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • augustghost

        Why not post you "spanish" comment on a "spanish" news site????? Go back where you came from amigo

        December 10, 2011 at 8:57 am | Report abuse |
  51. Hooligan

    does the word "generalize" mean anything to you?

    December 9, 2011 at 3:46 pm | Report abuse |
  52. LB

    They wouldn't be so offended if it wasn't 100% TRUE.

    December 9, 2011 at 3:43 pm | Report abuse |
  53. Pepe Lopez

    And I just had 1 million "Anchor Baby on Board" signs made for all of my friends for christmas

    December 9, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
    • Speedy Gonzales

      Agreed. Frikin' hilarious.

      December 9, 2011 at 4:28 pm | Report abuse |
    • Terry

      Wow I have to "third" that vote. Simply Hilarious and my kind of humor! Now I'm trying to picture what kind of shape or icon would be used on the sign? So many possibilities...

      December 9, 2011 at 6:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • chippy1

      were they printed in spanish?

      December 10, 2011 at 9:56 am | Report abuse |
    • Firehorseme

      Yes, right next to your Viva LA Raza flag!

      December 11, 2011 at 2:38 pm | Report abuse |
  54. Hooligan

    of course it's offensive.. you think it's supposed to be endearing?

    But mostly it's lingo.. it's an easier way and politically incorrect way of saying "illegal immigrant".

    It will only be offensive to those that know it to be true.

    December 9, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Report abuse |
  55. Texas Minuteman

    Texas 2 Step solution to the illegal alien invasion;

    1) Retroactive revocation of birthright citizenship for all US born children of illegal aliens to about 1970.

    2) Authority for CITIZENS ARREST of illegal aliens by American citizens!

    Armed with these 2 legal tools, patriots across the land will quickly round up ALL illegal aliens – and their stinking anchor babies too!!!

    GET OUT!!!

    December 9, 2011 at 3:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Cabello Graso

      baa ha haha soy usando el internet, Texas Minuteman esta dodo en el cabesa

      December 9, 2011 at 3:45 pm | Report abuse |
  56. T3chsupport

    Excuse me, but she prefers to be addressed as 'Ms. Palin'.

    December 9, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Report abuse |
  57. Laney1025

    Bravo!

    December 9, 2011 at 3:10 pm | Report abuse |
  58. TiredOf Illegals

    Actually the US Government keeps saying that there are 12 million illegals in the country. The truth is closer to 23 million. Check out immigrationcounters.com for the true numbers and how much money is being sent back over the border, etc.

    December 9, 2011 at 3:05 pm | Report abuse |
  59. smartenough2drive

    Why is this offensive? It is an accurate definition. I'm so tired of people pitching a fit when they are called out for their wrong doing. Just own up to it. If you don't like it don't do it. If you weren't doing anything illegal or wrong it wouldn't apply. That's like a murderer being offended for being called a killer. Or a cop being offended for being called a police officer.

    December 9, 2011 at 2:53 pm | Report abuse |
    • Laney1025

      I must agree. If they didn't "anchor" their illegal parents to the country where they legally born as citizens, they what else could you call it? They are the anchor that keeps their ILLEGAL parents here. Period...end of story...for anyone who don't like it, then don't have ANCHOR BABIES and don't condone ANCHOR BABIES! Not only do I think the term is appropriate, I fully believe it should stay regardless of the pc addicts in this country! And don't get me started on the mindless morons in this country who are among the ranks of the politically correct. I am tired of having to re-learn the language I have used my entire life. So get over it! I had rather be intelligent and considered (by some) as politically incorrect than for someone to point to me and say "you can't say this, that, and the other to her, she'll get offended"!!!

      December 9, 2011 at 3:09 pm | Report abuse |
  60. Wendy

    Are the parents of minors not legally responsible for them? US Citizen or not, if you deport the parents, the children, by law have to go with them. There is nothing preventing them, when they are of the age of legal consent, returning to the US. Our Country is going broke. 46% of Americans DO NOT pay taxes. The are on a social program ofsome kind. That is larger than ANY in history. There are jobs, just not the corner office that everyone wants. Politicians will not fix this because it is to hot of a topic and could cost someone their election. No one wants to be mean, but if you put my back against the wall, I will come out fighting for my own! The Line is drawn in the sand. You need to chose, America or your bleeding heart. Get off the fence! Make choice.

    December 9, 2011 at 2:50 pm | Report abuse |
    • D

      Sorry Wendy, you FAIL on the taxes claim. The 47% figure applies to Federal INCOME Taxes (because these people make so little there's nothing to tax). They still pay all the other property, excise, sales, etc taxes that everyone else does. BTW: Did you know that > 50% of the population earns LESS THAN $26k annually? 50%!

      December 9, 2011 at 4:01 pm | Report abuse |
  61. Jenny K

    You raise interesting points, but your commentary has nothing to do with whether the term is offensive or not. If the people to which it is applied consider the term derogatory, then they can take offense. That has absolutely nothing to do with the facts or figures or conjecture on immigration, illegal or otherwise.

    You seem to have confused two different topics of discussion in your response. This article isn't about whether or not people who have immigrated illegally plan to have children on US soil, it's about a derogatory term used to belittle children that are perceived to have been born for this purpose.

    December 9, 2011 at 2:46 pm | Report abuse |
  62. The truth

    I bet you that in 2012 when OBAMA is done whooping that Elephant (GOP) he will look over at the other elephant standing there (the white one) and take care of it, the guy is all about taking on SOCIAL ISSUES, more than i can say about others

    December 9, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
    • Southerner01

      Obama has less chance of winning the 2012 election than The Colts have of winning this year's superbowl.

      December 9, 2011 at 3:00 pm | Report abuse |
  63. the truth

    I'm working and thanks for paying my salary!

    December 9, 2011 at 2:21 pm | Report abuse |
  64. The truth

    For one, why don't we start by cutting down a little ,Puerto Rico is of no use to the U.S, half of you are in wellfare too, everytime an hurricane comes through we got to give you money! what do we get? We had to close down our Naval Bases down there, so the question is.... why are you still considered (a somewhat) part of the U.S, at least GUAM allows the US to have bases there!!! EXPLAIN THAT... I'm not a mexican but PR GUY!

    December 9, 2011 at 2:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • confused

      Okay, I read that and thought he was saying he was in Public Relations. Can we take off the caps lock and actually spell things out?

      December 9, 2011 at 2:44 pm | Report abuse |
  65. jino

    Seriously, if the illegally resident parents of anchor babies or others are offended, no one's stopping them from leaving. The law DOES make children born in the US Americans unless the parents choose to maintain the child's citizenship elsewhere which is typical of most diplomats etc. No dispute. But the law was enacted to ensure that children who were born to slaves born outside the US would be considered American as we went through and after the Civil War. It may be time to reexamine the law.

    December 9, 2011 at 2:00 pm | Report abuse |
    • the thruth

      It will never happen, you know why? there are two reasons that only matter in the U.S, money and politics. No self respecting politician has the cojones to stir the pot, they would be losing support from communities affected by the issue and you know how politicans love to get re-elected (that's where the money comes in) Plus, there are tons of racial and ethical issues involved with stripping a person of their citezenship, does that mean if a mother gives birth in Jail her baby should lose their right to vote? think about that for a while!

      December 9, 2011 at 2:28 pm | Report abuse |
  66. Tim Lister

    If you want to comment about the side of this issue you support that's fine. But don't use nasty language, personal insults or racially charged words with obvious double meanings and then call censorship on CNN. There are plenty of people on here who support your side of the issue but haven't had their comments deleted. That should tell you something.

    December 9, 2011 at 1:50 pm | Report abuse |
  67. Amayah Reynolds

    Those who enter the country are committing a crime if they do so illegally; they know this and do so anyway. They have no respect for the country they are illegally entering and are a drain to the economy....why is calling something what it really is "offensive"? These people are breaking the law!

    Our borders need protecting! Terrorists and others meant to harm US citizens will take advantage of weak borders and just...come in...Does it take a tragedy to strengthen our borders?

    That being said, I have the upmost respect for those who come to America, legally enter (even though it's a pain in the ass) and make an honest living. Our country is founded on that. Immigration (the legal kind) is inherently good, as we need more folks paying into Social Security as the Boomers retire.

    December 9, 2011 at 1:46 pm | Report abuse |
    • the truth

      Amayah, why don't you do something about it..... some one needs to protect our borders? as if that "some one" should be somebody other than you? don't you live here too? seriously? have you ever served your country? keep sitting on that couch eating chips and watching the stuppid box see what happens.

      December 9, 2011 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • philodopolis

        We pay taxes so that our illustrious Congress and so-called President will hire qualified people to protect our borders. We don't want "good ole boys" doing it. And we certainly don't want YOU doing it!

        December 9, 2011 at 3:01 pm | Report abuse |
  68. You're still clueless...

    Your headline says it all... (should be you're, not your). The real problem here is that you have George Bush Syndrome; You're not even smart enough to realize you're a moron. Civil War? Your mentality hasn't evolved from the mentality of people in the 1860s... Thanks for being part of the problem....

    December 9, 2011 at 1:43 pm | Report abuse |
  69. Your_Just_A_Moron

    I see more censorship on this and other posts then I have ever seen on conservative blogs, media, or other web sites.
    You are a liar and a hypocrite.

    As YOUR vice president suggested, let the CIVIL DISOBIEDANCE begin. You and I. Put up or shut up. Let the class war begin. You know liberal liar, a civil war between people concerning what should and should not be how a government is run.
    Definition of a civil war for stupid individuals like you.
    civil war
    n.
    1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.
    2. A state of hostility or conflict between elements within an organization: "The broadcaster is in the midst of a civil war that has brought it to the brink of a complete management overhaul" (Bill Powell).
    Definition of Class Warfare
    Noun 1. class warfare – conflict between social or economic classes (especially between the capitalist and proletariat classes)
    class struggle, class war
    conflict, struggle, battle – an open clash between two opposing groups (or individuals); "the harder the conflict the more glorious the triumph"–Thomas Paine; "police tried to control the battle between the pro- and anti-abortion mobs"
    Please note that both definitions are between two groups of individuals

    Only cowards like YOU would not have the guts to call it what it is. CIVIL WAR.

    I hate liberals.
    I hate you.
    Don't like it, then let’s meet and begin the fight. Let the Class War/Civil War begin “Your Clueless”

    December 9, 2011 at 1:31 pm | Report abuse |
  70. Hypatia

    PC BS

    December 9, 2011 at 1:28 pm | Report abuse |
  71. qwedie

    Why so loud? You must be hard of reading.lol

    December 9, 2011 at 1:17 pm | Report abuse |
  72. zaglossus

    No one wants to denigrate a single anchor baby as an individual. What we want to disparage is the whole legality of the anchor baby principle. It has reached its ultimate absurdity in wealthy Chinese flying over just to have a baby and then flying back to the People's Republic of China just so that this offspring, raised but not born in China (and who is culturally fully Chinese), can claim two citizenship's, a binational luxury denied to most Americans with American parents. And what happens to this offspring, if God forbid, there is a state of war between the USA and China? It's laughable.

    December 9, 2011 at 1:02 pm | Report abuse |
    • DDM

      At least the Chinese baby is likely to return here better educated than our own lazy kids. Can't say the same for south of the border, whether schooled there or here.

      December 9, 2011 at 1:34 pm | Report abuse |
      • the truth

        yup, another genius.. now we are having chinese/american communist babies of course being much better than mexicans!

        December 9, 2011 at 1:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • DebG

      Totally agree. It's a shame we ever allowed dual citizenship. You can only be a citizen of one country. China versus US, which side are you on? Most of the anchor babies of hispanic descent generally speak no English by the time them enter schools, so are they really American? The answer is "no", and our cowardly politicians have done nothing to stop the invasion of this country and the stealing of money to give birth to and educate these foreigners!

      December 9, 2011 at 7:25 pm | Report abuse |
      • queenbee10

        I'm still trying to figure out WHEN dual citizenship was allowed. It was not in the 1970s. In 1980 I received a letter from our State Dept in which I was told to CHOOSE either my UK citizenship (born in England to Airforce family) OR to choose being an American. The accompanying forms were an oath swearing sole allegiance to the USA. The other form was a letter telling me that if I wrote down that I wanted UK citizenship then I "might" be deported within 30 days. Which should an 18 year old choose?

        did that sound like choices?

        December 9, 2011 at 11:11 pm | Report abuse |
      • Criolla

        Dual citizenship is maily to benefit American Jews that are Israeli citizens also, it allowes to calim Benefits in both country, you do not understand, many British can have also dual one, some countries do not permit, the USA does with some restriccions, many Poles go back to Poland to retire and keep US citizenship.
        Many countries grants automatically to a child born in one parent country and if the other is US, or whatever.
        The most sought citizenship is Zwiss, not US.
        Just call your Senator to aprove and pass the Bill that do not grant citizenship to children born of illegals like any other place in the world. It is simple if there are many that ask for this Bill.

        December 11, 2011 at 5:01 pm | Report abuse |
    • Johan S

      Just how do you go about preventing dual citizenship .. if China recognizes someone as a citizen that person may not really have a choice in the matter. Second, even if they verbally disavow that country .. in a war you never know which side the person may take .. either way. I mean you have American citizens going and joining enemies all the time. Also, what about dual citizenship with closely allied countries like Israel, Britain, or Canada .. it would make it difficult for someone who wants to travel and work in both countries from doing so.

      December 9, 2011 at 7:30 pm | Report abuse |
    • hello

      yep and anyone of those kids born of illegals can one day be president of the US and not have ever been raised here or be part of our culture.. they can be president and then turn THIS country over to their native country by making critical decisions to MAKE IT HAPPEN. SCARY...

      December 9, 2011 at 7:33 pm | Report abuse |
      • Johan S

        That's among the most ridiculous things I ever heard. Who's going to vote for such a person? Unless that too becomes a job Americans don't want. If the country is going to elect some Chinese dude who can't speak English as PRESIDENT .. what does that say about the other options?

        December 9, 2011 at 7:49 pm | Report abuse |
      • Paul

        Yeah, that is a goofy suggestion. You do realize this "secret Chinese" Amercian would have to run for president. Dont you think he might get asked a few questions about his background....lol

        December 10, 2011 at 6:28 am | Report abuse |
    • chippy1

      but imagine the ease they will have ordering out

      December 10, 2011 at 9:58 am | Report abuse |
  73. sidprejean

    By your logic, one might innocently combine a three-letter word meaning donkey with a 4-letter word meaning a deep depression in the ground.

    Just sayin'

    December 9, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
  74. Scott

    The irony is, it has come into use because illegal immigrant apologists use the anchor babies as a shield to try to prevent throwing out the lawbreakers. "But their child was BORN in this country, you are eveil to throw out this criminal because their BABY was born in this country" " We cannot separate this CRIMINAL from this BABY, they need to bee TIED together" (anchored). If we simply kick them out, then either the US can keep the child and put it up for adoption (since many American women would rather go overseas rather than carry a child to term or adopt a child other than a baby), or the criminal can take the child back to their home country. Pretty easy. Politicians and Liberals in general want to make things more complicated than they really have to be.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
    • Erik

      I find that the word intellectual and liberal often describe the same person, whereas cretin and conservative often share a skin. We live in a very complex world and the solutions to our problems must be complex. I know that might be too much to fit on a bumper sticker, so it likely won't pass muster with the neo-cons in our midsts, but it is true.

      December 11, 2011 at 8:38 am | Report abuse |
  75. JOSE0311USMC

    WANT THE IMMIGRATION LAWS ENFORCE ??? OBAMA IS NOT THE PERSON TO DO IT.. ROMNEY ?? WILL HE DO IT ?

    December 9, 2011 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
  76. Joe

    Not sure why this is offensive? Either it's true or it isn't... either someone is an anchor baby or they're not.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:49 pm | Report abuse |
    • confused

      Well, I think the term baby boomer is offensive. We don't need to label a generation based on their parents procreative habits.

      December 9, 2011 at 2:56 pm | Report abuse |
      • Paul

        Well if we want to ahve policy discussion we do need to label them since they are a result of a chosen policy.

        December 10, 2011 at 6:30 am | Report abuse |
  77. verbal abuse

    I agree, so would drug user/drug abuser be termed politically incorrect. How about neither the word anchor, nor the word baby are verbally offensive so the term itself shouldn't be considered as such.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
  78. Navy Vet

    What angers me so much about the Mexicans is they think they have a right to live in the U S. They have NO right unless we say they do.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • Get Real with this crap...

      Get off your power trip... You're not smart enough to dictate other people's behavior...

      December 9, 2011 at 12:45 pm | Report abuse |
    • JOSE0311USMC

      I'M A HISPANIC , PR GUY. I AGREE WITH YOU. ANOTHER THING ABOUT MEXICANS THEY ARE USING THE RACIAL CARD . I'M SICK AND TIRED OF THEM COMPLAINING ABOUT RACE DISCRIMINATION....ALL U.S. CITIZEN'S CARRY PHOTO I.D. WHY CAN'T THEY ?

      December 9, 2011 at 12:46 pm | Report abuse |
  79. Truth

    The original definition was not offensive.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:38 pm | Report abuse |
  80. echo

    Somehow as soon as someone makes a common sense post, it gets deleted.
    Again...
    1. Being U.S. citizen, and/or living in U.S.A. is not a human right issue.
    2. Yes, immigrate to U.S. legally is difficult, but thousands have done it, I am one of them. and when did difficult start to become an excuse to break the law? would the government give me a pass if I rob a bank and say it is too difficult to make a living legally?
    3. The age of manual labor make a country advance is over, We need engineers, computer scientist, bio-chemists, accountants. I've friends who have Ph.D in Bio-engineering, Master in Accounting, Computer science, who can't stay here. Yet we allow other country dump their uneducated, unskilled people in the U.S. and let OUR social program take care of them.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:32 pm | Report abuse |
    • Notso

      Well said. Agree completely. I knew many foreign students in my PhD program. Luckily, most of them found employment in the US as professors, and will likely have children in the future that will be the next generation of well integrated children of legal immigrants.

      December 9, 2011 at 12:38 pm | Report abuse |
    • c

      you know i have noticed the same thing about logical comments

      December 10, 2011 at 4:13 am | Report abuse |
  81. Notso

    Another point. Legal immigration should be merit-based, not proximity based, or randomly generated. Fact: More people in the world would like to be American citizens than we could reasonably accept. Logically, we can afford to be choosey. A better candidate from Kenya, China, India, Ireland, Germany, Zimbabwe, wherever, should take precedence over a "lesser" candidate from Mexico (or any other place). Defining desireable characteristics for legal immigrants should be worked out in the democratic process, but I can suggest a few. Independently wealthy, and intending to create jobs in America, and you speak/write English fluently, front of the line. No education, many health problems, don't speak/write English, back of the line. Sorry. As I said, we can afford to be choosey.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:27 pm | Report abuse |
    • The truth

      So, let me understand this. We as a Nation that prides itself in freedom and liberty will use racial profiling to populate our lack of HOMEGROWN skill?? did you just choose an African nation over mexico? you kidding right?

      December 9, 2011 at 12:47 pm | Report abuse |
      • echo

        Apparently, "the truth" can't seem to understand what other people are saying. What we are saying is that yes this is a country of freedom, but it doesn't mean anyone in the world is free to come here to take from our social programs, attend school funded by our tax dollar or even work. However, if anyone in the world want to come here legally, including people from Africa, South America Asia, wherever, there should be a merit based system (a lot like what they have in Canada). A point system, for example, if they speak English, that is a plus point, they don't that is a negative point, depends on the education level, various points are awarded. and based on that we can pick and chose the best and brightest who can make THIS country better. Yes. we are and want to be the lead of the world, however, no matter how you slice and dice it, we have to take care of our own first before take care of 6.7 billion other people.

        December 9, 2011 at 12:55 pm | Report abuse |
      • Notso

        I think you misunderstand. No racial profiling would occur at all - that is the point. In fact, the race of the person wouldn't matter at all. Only their merit. What do they bring to the table? Well educated, English speaking, healthy people are preferable regardless of what race they are or what country they come from. A Mexican that meets the standards of the merit based system (whatever we decide as a society those merits should be) would be welcome. As would a Kenyan or a Chinese person. The fact is we need a certain number of legal immigrants to come to this country to keep up the growth rate (we aren't having enough children to grow without some immigration).

        December 9, 2011 at 12:58 pm | Report abuse |
    • Paul

      Way too logical.

      December 10, 2011 at 6:31 am | Report abuse |
  82. JOSE0311USMC

    TEA PARTY--I'M A HISPANIC GUY AND I VOTED FOR OBAMA AND I AGREE WITH YOU ..OBAMA WANTS TO GIVE THEM AMNESTY ....AND HE OBVIOUSLY WANT THEIR VOTES. # 1 REASON DEMOCRATS ARE SO AGAINST THE VOTER PICTURE I.D. SO ILLEGALS CAN VOTE WITH FAKE I.D.'S DEMOCRATS ARE PUTTING ILLEGALS AHEAD OF THE AMERICAN CITIZEN'S.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:27 pm | Report abuse |
  83. mokk1

    Why do Mexicans think they own the term "anchor baby" and "illegal immigrant"?

    December 9, 2011 at 12:23 pm | Report abuse |
    • Emigdio

      they don't. it's just that other people associate the word to mexicans, making it a stereotype.

      December 9, 2011 at 12:27 pm | Report abuse |
      • echo

        Stereotype has its origin. Here is why we associate ILLEGALs with Latinos but not with Asians or Europeans.
        According to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the countries of origin for the largest numbers of illegal immigrants are as follows (latest of 2009):[16]
        Country of origin Raw number Percent of total Percent change 2000 to 2009
        Mexico 6,650,000 62% +42%
        El Salvador 530,000 5% +25%
        Guatemala 480,000 4% +65%
        Honduras 320,000 3% +95%
        Philippines 270,000 2% +33%
        India 200,000 2% +64%
        Korea 200,000 2% +14%
        Ecuador 170,000 2% +55%
        Brazil 150,000 1% +49%
        China 120,000 1% -37%
        Other 1,650,000 15% -17%

        December 9, 2011 at 12:47 pm | Report abuse |
  84. elle

    I would be curious to know the education level of most of these posters.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:18 pm | Report abuse |
    • John Wright

      elle is afraid of gun owning republican Tea Party members so she reports a post as abusive!

      December 9, 2011 at 12:29 pm | Report abuse |
  85. The truth

    The simple truth is that the US is changing, I'm sorry... but this is not your grandpa's 1950s America. The demographics are changing and one day LATINOS will be the majority, those of you that live and breathe hate KNOW this but YOU CAN"T STOP IT.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:13 pm | Report abuse |
    • Will

      You can't be a FIRST WORLD country with a THIRD WORLD population. You're CHEERLEADING the US turning into a THIRD WORLD dump.

      It may be reality, but don't celebrate it.

      December 9, 2011 at 12:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • the truth

      Again, you can't stop it.....look at it as the U.S gaining some flavor!

      December 9, 2011 at 12:43 pm | Report abuse |
    • the truth

      Who is talking about ruling are we a Monarchy? it seems that you have some type of infiriority complex also.... again just think it as you gaining some FLAVOR my brother! We almost there though! you eat tacos right? have a pinata at your kids Bday? your kids watch Dora the explorer and go-diego-go? You throw a party for cinco de mayo??? your kids are learning how to speak spanish in school right??? You see, open your eyes....slowly but surely my man

      December 9, 2011 at 12:56 pm | Report abuse |
    • Zheng Xi

      I am sorry, who is ruining this country?

      December 9, 2011 at 1:41 pm | Report abuse |
    • Chavi

      Get used to it Buddy! They are coming no matter how hard you try to keep them out. You send back 2 and 20 come back, It's life get used to it.

      December 9, 2011 at 2:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • the truth

      Its funny how when stuff goes down with a NATION the blame is always with a minority, last time this happened was during WW2 and Nazy Germany....We all know what happened there.

      December 9, 2011 at 2:40 pm | Report abuse |
    • chippy1

      ok, marine you know what you have to do

      December 10, 2011 at 10:11 am | Report abuse |
    • Saturn7

      we could easily drop a few bombs on mexico and be done with it. Mexico has officially turned into a corrupt craphole.

      December 10, 2011 at 10:39 pm | Report abuse |
    • And Then

      After you turn America into Mexico, you won't want to live there anymore either. What country to pour into and spoil next, Canada?

      December 11, 2011 at 8:28 am | Report abuse |
  86. kuksupwan

    Ah yes hypersenitivity! We wouldnt want to have any butt-hurt feelings amongst people that shouldnt actually be here in our country.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:13 pm | Report abuse |
  87. Tired old Bigot

    I read the definition of Fascism and see the Tea Party. Its undeniable. You are a party, by and large, composed of uncompromising closet bigots, paranoid about government. You are absolutist, elitist and belligerent. You refuse to see anything but tax reduction on social programs, unless it comes down to medicare or social security. Hypocritical. You have no clue about why centralized government is essential: small minded idiots reinventing the law in tunnel vision, because someone from San Salvador moved into their neighborhood and they dont like salsa music. Why do most people think that the Tea Party represents bigots? I'm reading your posts. You make that clear. You associate yourself with the Tea Party.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:12 pm | Report abuse |
    • elle

      There is a great deal of rage here on the part of people who don't feel that they got their fair share in life. They want to blame somebody else for their respective issues. The larger truth is, immigration has been a part of the human story since our beginnings. People tend to pick up and move toward better opportunity, whether that means more woolly mammoths to hunt or more low-level jobs. Naturally the current occupiers of the goal territory get upset. This territoriality is probably genetically hard-wired and comes across in recent times as nativism, Know-Nothing bigotry etc. Many white Christian Europeans are steaming mad over their own immigrants even though they are there legally for the most part. It really has nothing to do with laws on paper, but with powerful human momentum and the need for self-betterment. The immigrants of the turn of the century were received with panic and hate, but their children made up a huge proportion of "The Greatest Generation" and made America a world power very quickly. There will be a lot of social discomfort and resentment as immigrants settle in and become integrated in this society, but out beyond the lifespans of most of these posters, the benefits of immigraiton will become apparent. When you read what "nativitsts" were saying about legal Irish Italian, German and Scandinavian immigrants a few generations ago, you would be shocked. The lesson is this - and it takes a generation or two to play out - : America is still the land of individual initiative. Those who put their energy into working and getting ahead (and sometimes that means using sharp elbows and being "grabby") will see their kids move upward even if they themsleves don't. Those who sit around grousing will be left behind to marinate in their grudges.

      December 9, 2011 at 12:45 pm | Report abuse |
  88. Double Standard?

    Everyone saying we need to open the boarders more to let in more people legally and that illegal immigration happens because it is to hard and takes to long to do so legally need to realize there are reasons this is the case. 1) if we oppened the door more then we would see a lot more immigration but still a lot of illegal immigration (unless we just let everyone become a citizen in which case we should have no boarder at all). 2) The reason there is a limit is to stem the flow. If we start letting in legally a huge amount of poor, non/barely english speaking and/or low/unskilled workers then it would be a MASSIVE drain on the system. As soon as they are legal they can start collecting unemployment, more child support and the like. If someone can give a good reason why we would want to invite huge numbers of people who have a higher probability to be dependent on government suppot I am happy to hear it.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:09 pm | Report abuse |
    • Double Standard?

      And to get ahead of it: The argument that they do low paying dirty jobs that "americans wont touch" does not work. One reason we don't want to do those jobs is because they pay so little. They pay so little because they can. Any company will only pay the amount required to get the skill level employee needed. These low wage jobs would pay minimum wage or more if it were required to get the number of employees they need. The illegal labor keeps the pay low. I think another reason is that these jobs become stigmatized because of high proportions of illegal labor and are tehn view as the job of an illegal. Also, there are many cases where they are doing jobs that Americans would do if they could get it. Not all Americans are so pathetic that they will remain on perpetual unempolyment and complain about not having enough when there is a real job they can do.

      December 9, 2011 at 12:16 pm | Report abuse |
      • Johan S

        No, that's not the only reason it pays little it's also how much a person can afford. For example if a homeowner can only afford to pay $50 to mow his lawn but all the workers he finds want $100 .. guess how many people he hires? zero.
        If the minimum wage was $5 instead of $9 (I'm in California) .. I'd be able to hire two maids. Homes would cost less to build .. so that bigger houses and buildings can be made since there will be more workers working. Same thing with industrial production and mining etc.

        December 9, 2011 at 7:56 pm | Report abuse |
  89. Bob

    Most Americans are the product of "anchor babies" and the founding fathers were illegal immigrants. What's that? They were legal immigrants? Says who? Did the Native Americans give them citizenship? Good thing the Native Americans didn't say "Let 'em starve" during the first Thanksgiving or this country might be a French territory.

    December 9, 2011 at 12:03 pm | Report abuse |
    • Tea Party Express

      Native Americans were anchor babies from Asia.

      oh no, your entire argument is now invalid!

      December 9, 2011 at 12:08 pm | Report abuse |
    • Double Standard?

      So we should just let in EVERYONE who wants to come because of something that happened a couple hundred years ago? Something that was not the fault of ANYONE alive today since even all our parents were not alive (using the "its not the kids fault" argument on it the "its not the great-great...grandkids fault). Something done during a time period when the world had a different state of mind. Also, since I think we can all agree (I hope) that what the settlers did was wrong) your argument is null since it says, because wrong was done by our great-great-relatives, a different group can come do wrong to us? So African-Americans can enslave whites because to forbid and stop that would be hypocritical since "we" did it to them? Aboriginals in Austrailia can commit attrocities because their people were wronged? And, for that matter, if does not even need to be the wronged getting back at those who hurt them because your argument is x did wrong to y so z can do the same wrong to the decendents of x.

      December 9, 2011 at 12:30 pm | Report abuse |
      • Johan S

        Wait a second, you don't want to pay for the mistakes of prior generations? But then how come "anchor babies" have to pay for their parents' crime?

        December 9, 2011 at 7:36 pm | Report abuse |
      • Jerry9999

        Because they are illegal and should not be here. Need to use E Verify to identify all working people that are illegal, round them up and deport them. Especially the anchor babies. Only 50% of Hispanics graduate high school in California and statistics show that 50% of high school dropouts wind up in and out of prison for most of their lives. 27% of CA prison population are illegal aliens, 21% of Federal prisons are illegal aliens. Welcome them with open arms???

        December 10, 2011 at 9:51 am | Report abuse |
    • John

      Actually the founding fathers would have been considered terrorists today.........

      December 9, 2011 at 2:33 pm | Report abuse |
  90. Tea Party Express

    Thank you Navy Vet. GOD will reward us for these trials and temptations

    December 9, 2011 at 11:57 am | Report abuse |
  91. Simian

    It seems pretty accurate to me. If it weren't, no one would think it offensive.

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

      Aye, good point.

      December 15, 2011 at 6:56 pm | Report abuse |
  92. thoughts

    Maybe we would not have this problem with illegal immigration if the United States had not fought a war of aggression against Mexico in 1846-1848, invading that country, deposing its government, installing a government to our own liking, and forcing them to cede what are now the states of California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, most of Arizona and Colorado, and parts of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wyoming. As a friend of my told me when I asked him when his family came to the U.S: "We came when the border moved."

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

      Actually, Mexican Soldiers started that war when they kept crossing the Texas Border. Seems they had a sore spot with Texicans, same as they had a sore spot with paying their National Debt to France. It was the beginning of a long Mexican Tradition of Not Paying Debts which they have now made a part of American Diversity.

      December 11, 2011 at 8:32 am | Report abuse |
  93. Me

    Yes, but patriotic to whom?

    December 9, 2011 at 11:49 am | Report abuse |
  94. flashtrum

    Now the dictionary is telling us how to "feel" about words – not just how to spell them. Good grief. (I hope I did not offend anyone who today might be experiencing actual grief).

    December 9, 2011 at 11:48 am | Report abuse |
  95. Me

    Minutia.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:48 am | Report abuse |
  96. Tired old Bigot

    Tea Party = American Fascism, not patriotism.

    Nothing but solutionless rage from you people. Disgraceful and furthest thing from Americanism.

    December 9, 2011 at 11:44 am | Report abuse |
    • John Wright

      Bigot and his family would have sided with the British in 1776!

      December 9, 2011 at 12:19 pm | Report abuse |
  97. Tea Party Express

    They are so proud of Mexico, why don't they go back there?

    December 9, 2011 at 11:39 am | Report abuse |
    • Dr Trollworth

      Insufficient tacos.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:56 am | Report abuse |
  98. Navy Vet

    Air Force Orphan. I have a degree in engineering and served my country well. What were you a cook? By the way, most people agree with me.

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

      Correction: most people who think like you agree with you.

      That is not most people, by the way.

      December 9, 2011 at 11:46 am | Report abuse |
  99. Jimmy

    Why would an apartment complex in Avon Colorado on the 4th of July have about 6 Mexican Flags flying?

    December 9, 2011 at 11:38 am | Report abuse |
    • chippy1

      they were advertising a theme park?

      December 10, 2011 at 10:13 am | Report abuse |
1 2 3 4 5