"Anchor baby" term too misleading and insulting to use

1. ---"First of all, I never mentioned that the term anchor baby only applied to the children of illegal immigrants." Actually, you did. However, I am aware that most people don't say whether it applies *only* to "illegal immigrants", let alone *which* "illegal immigrants". That is why the term is misleading. Are we talking about 14 million people? 700,000 people? 350,000? 8,000? This isn't an issue of unreliable statistics, it's an issue of unreliable words. I certainly don't know which people, you admit you don't know, and it seems no one else does either. The problem is, once we do know - once someone has adequately defined the phrase - then there are better terms we could use. ---"Here's one from Merriam-Webster..." Merriam Webster does not provide a definition. What you are referring to is a *user submitted* definition (by Anonymous). http://nws.merriam-webster.com.... There's also one from Urban Dictionary: -- What your girlfriend hopes to achieve by "forgetting" to taker [sic] her pill, thus guaranteeing that you'll have to spend the rest of your now ruined life with her... or that you'll have to run from the law forever to avoid child support. Here's what Cambridge says: Here's Webster: Macmillan's definition: Here's one from Oxford: - Used to refer to a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country which has birthright citizenship, especially when viewed as providing an advantage to family members seeking to secure citizenship or legal residency. Finally, American Heritage: - 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. I reiterate, it is not merely misleading and non-standard, it is so misleading and non-standard that most reputable dictionaries don't provide any definition, let alone consistent ones. --- "Naturally, others want to find a method with a higher chance of success," That is "the American way". But demonstrate that having a son or a daughter who is a citizen increases the chance or decreases the time to become a citizen. Then provide a reason why that's relevant to making up poorly defined, emotionally charged words, rather than simply saying "children of immigrants". 2. --- "I don't think the word is aimed so much at the baby," "Think" what you want, it's literally in the word. It's also in the definition you provided to... sorry, "from" Webster, right at the beginning - "a baby born...". Not only does American Heritage agree - "...a child born...", it also recognizes what is "disparaging". You might as well claim saying "Screw you" isn't about "you". --- "Regardless, I fail to see that changing or censoring a word based on insult alone is a good idea. " If you don't care how people will understand the word, then you are not using words to convey specific concepts. If you are using a word specifically to insult, then *that* is the concept your intend to convey. Granted, those who wish to use the word specifically to be insulting are those least about to self-censor themselves, but that doesn't mean everyone else should accept it. "Anchor babies" should be among words like "n..."[1] that society simply does not accept. [1] Expletive literally deleted by debate.org! http://www.debate.org... 3. --- " As you said, some words are too narrow, and some are too broad as a substitute for anchor baby, so why not leave it as it is?" Because you either INTEND a broad meaning OR a narrow meaning. Unless you intend BOTH broad AND narrow, it is not appropriate. If you mean either 14 million people AND 8,000 people, then you are either very very confused, or want the listener to be very confused. There is no context to determine whether the speaker is referring to. For instance, I could use "love" either broadly - like "I love everyone" - or a narrowly like - "I love my wife/husband". You notice how you automatically can tell the difference? Let's try.... - "Anchor babies should receive emergency medical care, prior to deportation." - "The parents of anchor babies should be branded, and deported with their child." Which did I intend only to apply to only "birth tourists"? Which is for all children of undocumented immigrants? Although I don't fully support either statement, I do have an intended *different* meaning for them - can you guess which is which, or is "anchor baby" too broadly narrow? "Immigrant children" is NOT emotionally charged. Neither is "first generation citizen," "birth tourists," "natural born citizens," "young undocumented immigrants" or "illegal resident children". (Or "kids".) --- "Now I do agree with you that the word is emotionally charged, but it's not the word but the situation behind it that causes so much friction in people." I disagree. As I've stated, this vagueness, and insult directed at babies, is why it is emotionally charged. If it weren't, it wouldn't be used. Since no one could possibly whether you mean it broadly, narrowly, both or just talking about your pregnant girlfriend, the only thing left is emotion. --- "For example, we refer to the camps that exterminated Jews in world war 2 as "death camps". The word is very vivid and accurate. Now if we just say "prison camp", the effect is diminished." There is a concrete difference between a "death camp" and a "prison camp". A prison camp is where people are held prisoner. A "death camp" is either a sub-set of prison camps, as where people are held prisoner and die - or the worst Boy Scout trip ever. Regardless, the words are meant to convey concepts, which are emotionally disturbing. "Anchor baby" is meant to convey emotional disturbance about immigration. You actually admit the purpose is so "the severity of the issue will also diminish." So, if we use "immigrant children" or other terms (see above), the severity is less. The issues remain important. Do a google search for "anchor baby" and "immigrant children", and compare the *nature* of the results. "Anchor baby" is not used to discuss the severity of a complex issue, it's used to distract from the complex issue. The purpose is not to convey politically relevant concepts, it is meant to be the statement of harm, the argument, conclusion and solution all rolled in to one. It is the equivalent of shouting "F----- A--HOLES!!"[1] (Pro-tip: Take the search results from "anchor babies", and every time you see "anchor baby", replace it with "f----- a--holes". Now do that with the results from "immigrant children".)