"Anchor baby" term too misleading and insulting to use

Counter Arguments: 1. Is the term anchor baby misleading? "To claim that it only applies to children specifically of illegal immigrants is disingenuous, even within context. The word more than implies it is specifically only women who come within the U.S. to have a child so the child gains citizenship." First of all, I never mentioned that the term anchor baby only applied to the children of illegal immigrants. I used that as an example in the context of say an illegal immigration debate, which I then followed up with another example about children who are legally there petitioning their parents (although I admit that the second example was poorly worded). I reiterate that the word anchor baby is not misleading when used today since the definition itself is quite clear as you yourself stated in round one. Here's one from Merriam-Webster: (noun) : a baby born in the United States to non-citizen parents; esp.: a baby whose U.S. citizenship potentially provides a means to citizenship for other family members. When you are a foreign national and want to apply for a US citizenship, or if you are a foreign national and want your child to become a US citizen, you need to go through the proper channels, which could take months or years and not even guarantee that you pass. Naturally, others want to find a method with a higher chance of success, hence they use the jus soli policy and go to the states (either legally or illegally) and give birth there, guaranteeing that the baby is born a citizen with all the rights and privileges accorded. The baby is then called an anchor baby. Anchor baby does not refer to just any baby, it refers only to babies of non-citizen parents who gave birth in the states which include tourists, temporary residents, those with working permits, border crossers, and so on. Any use of the word in these circumstances is valid, as long as the parents are non-citizens and give birth in the states. I know that there are many types of "non-citizen" persons, and as I said in round 1 it is then up to what kind of context the word "non-citizien" is being used, but regardless of which type of non-citizen parents are involved, the word anchor baby still applies to their child if they gave birth in the US. 2. Is the word anchor baby insulting - I don't think the word is aimed so much at the baby, but rather more as a way to hit back at the parents who are using the jus soli policy as a loophole to prevent having to apply for proper papers at the embassy. Babies don't have the mental capacity to understand the word itself, much less be insulted by it. It could be a different matter once the child grows up (if we still consider adults as anchor babies), but I argue that this word's primary purpose when used in immigration debates is a way to pressure the government to address the loophole, and not just as a random putdown like the word "idiot". Regardless, I fail to see that changing or censoring a word based on insult alone is a good idea. For example, the word "idiot" or "moron" is almost 100% pure insult with no other subject matter in the background, but no one is seriously advocating that we stop using them. A word will die it's natural death when it has outlived its usefulness. I also think that the word "anchor baby" will eventually die once the immigration policies of the US has become satisfactory for the majority of its citizens, but as of the moment a lot of people are pushing for change, hence "anchor baby" is so popular. It will die eventually, but forcing it to die before its time will only make things worse. 3. Is the word anchor baby appropriate? - 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? 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. There are many US citizens that are deeply unsatisfied with the current immigration policies, hence polarizing figures like Donald Trump have suddenly become so popular. If the word is too insulting and we push for a word with less insult, the severity of the issue will also diminish. 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. Likewise, changing the term to a less "insulting" term will have the same effect of decreasing the magnitude of the immigration debate, especially those on the side who want stricter measures in place.