Talk:Anchor baby

message: It says pejorative. I haven't heard a "politically correct" (soft words) term for anchor baby, so until that happens I feel it should be removed  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.99.69 (talk) 23:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done There are multiple reliable sources which state this as a pejorative, one specifically bringing up your concern. As it stands right now, the opening sentence does not give undue weight --wL<speak·check> 07:12, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make more neutral 

message: Anchor Baby is not a term solely used to describe the behaviour of Latinamerican families in the US. It is also a term to describe Chinese and African Birth Tourism in Canada, Australia, France, etc. The article also immediately opens up with a WP:UNDUEWEIGHT machine-gun fire of WP:TOOMANYCITATIONS of pro-immigrant Editorials in liberal or pro-immigration leaning Newspapers followed by dubious language trying to cast doubt over whether the phenomenon actually exists (it does), creating a breach of WP:NPOV by painting the word as some kind of racist derogatory word in line with phrases like "currymuncher", "beaner", etc. which is false and a blatant sign that the writer likely had an agenda to push.
Fadendra1 (talk) 05:36, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has a grossly Pro-immigrant & US-centric bias 

message: The first sentence of the 14th Amendment explicitly requires legal residency, this  has  been pointed out by  many, and was reaffirmed in  the 1898 Supreme  Court decision.  Wikipedia  should  make  this  clear. Illegal  immigrants do not have legal residency and so are not covered by the 14th Amendment.47.201.182.47 (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a lawyer or particularly focused on this, but the above piqued my interest enough for me to dig up "the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment expressly equates citizenship only with simple residence" in Zobe v Williams () and "The Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause expressly equates citizenship with residence, Zobel, 457 U. S., at 69" in Saenz v. Roe (). Since I went to the trouble of digging that up, I thought I would link those cites here for ease of reference. Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 19:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, Plyler v. Doe (1982), dealing with the right to public education of children who were brought illegally into the US — the Supreme Court said in this case that 14th Amendment "jurisdiction" was essentially equivalent to physical presence and was not conditioned on having entered the US legally.  As for Wong Kim Ark, our current understanding of "illegal immigration" was mostly unknown in 1898, and most (though admittedly not all) legal scholars who have written/spoken on this case have opined that it applies both to legal and to illegal immigrants; see the section "Wong Kim Ark and children of illegal aliens" in the Wong Kim Ark article.  — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:48, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Babies of foreign  aliens are not US Citizens, Senator Reverdy Johnson said it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_M._Howard#Speech_on_the_proposed_14th_Amendment Note Wong was OK because his father had legal residency. Note also the Plyler vs Doe ruling was only in so much as schooling illegal children is concerned.  Anchor Babies of aliens are therefore not citizens. 47.201.182.47 (talk) 04:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Residency Requirement

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Drop and leave. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 14#Drop and leave until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Hog Farm  Bacon 15:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Drop and leave" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]