"Anchor baby" term too misleading and insulting to use

Third round: 1. Is the term anchor baby misleading? First, Where did I say that the term "only" applied to illegal immigrants? Second, Oops... I should have checked that the Merriam Webster definition was user submitted. Nonetheless, it still matches closely to the reputable Oxford and American Heritage definitions that you gave, both of which are also consistent with each other. Also, it is fairly consistent that anchor baby refers to a baby born from a non-citizen as mentioned in both dictionaries. Non-citizen means non-citizen, whether you came there legally or not. There is no inconsistency. If you are not a citizen when you have the child there, then the word anchor baby is applicable. If you are a citizen, then it's not applicable. Third, you say I have to demonstrate how having a son or daughter as a citizen increases the chances or decreases the time of becoming a citizen yourself, but we are not debating whether anchor babies are a feasible option or not for parents, but rather is the word misleading. It's not, since the word is quite clear that it refers to babies of non-citizens especially those who could later secure citizenship. Whether this is a sound strategy or not is irrelevant, but the term itself is not misleading. Fourth, "children of immigrants" can refer to both foreign-born citizens or non-citizens, while anchor baby is specially used for non-citizens only. 2. Is the term anchor baby insulting? - I said before that the word is mostly aimed at the parents who try to loophole the system and is geared towards forcing the government to enact stricter immigration laws. If you say we should take it as a direct insult aimed at babies, then okay, let's go ask some babies what they think about this word. Tell me if you can find a baby that can say "I find this word insulting." Now if we counted the adult version of these babies once they are grown up, that would fine, but the babies themselves are not yet fully capable of receiving insult from this term, so hence it is geared towards the adults. So far, this has been an emotional topic, and you are clearly affected by it also, so my point stands that it is we adults who are emotionally affected by this term. Also, you said "screw you", which is an insulting term. Should we also lobby for that term to be removed? Is it not hypocritical to say that some words should be removed from usage while simultaneously using words that also hurt others? As I said, the word anchor baby will die out eventually once the majority of the US population can come to terms with its immigration laws. I am NOT advocating that we use it, I am just not comfortable with the fact that the English language is being policed so heavily nowadays. Finally, the word n****r (which by the way, you tried to use and has been deleted by this website) is by no means completely unacceptable to society. There are those who hate it so much and will attack anyone who says it, while others use it as a form of endearment like black comedians and rappers. 3. Is the word anchor baby appropriate - "Anchor babies should receive emergency medical care, prior to deportation." This statement doesn't really make sense since anchor babies are automatically considered citizens, so why should they be deported? Anyway, since you used the term anchor baby which means babies of a non-citizen, then you are referring to all babies of non-citizens. This is not vague. If you wanted a more specific definition, then use a more specific word like "babies of Chinese tourists." I used the "death camp" example as way of saying that the severity of the issue lessens with the changing of the labels itself. Naturally, those on the anti-immigration side think that by banning anchor baby (even the word "alien" or "illegal" is now being banned) the importance of their side is also decreases, so they are opposing it. The last pro-tip does not make sense as well. For example, this headline on the front of the search results "Anchor babies, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment" would not make sense with "F----- A------, birthright citizenship, and the 14th Amendment". As with immigrant children, this headline "Norway accused of unfairly taking away immigrant children" would not also make sense with 'Norway accused of unfairly taking away F------- A------". PERSONAL NOTE: As we have come to the closing round, I would just like to state my personal views. I am not a US citizen nor will I ever be. I come from a third world country where we do not have citizenship by soil, but rather citizenship by bloodline. This does not matter anyway since the only people wanting to immigrate here are rich American dudes wanting their pension to last forever due to the cheap labor market and prices. However, I know many people who desperately want to enter into the states through whatever means necessary, whether feasible or not, and my uncle was at one time an illegal immigrant and has been deported back to our place. With that said, I am NOT in favor of the current paranoia that the states is having about building a Great Wall of Donald Trump and attempting to kick everyone out. I apologize if this debate has caused your blood pressure to rise. We are probably on the same side on this issue, and our only difference is that I feel like trying to impose a blockade on words that we find insulting is not the right way to go. In fact, people who use the word anchor baby is actually doing themselves a disfavor, because they are seen as ranting ultra-nationalists. There are consequences to using charged words, but we should still protect everyone's right to say them no matter how bad it is. However, that does not mean we can't call them out on their bullsh** once they say it, which I would agree is the way to go. That was a nice debate! Thank you very much!