Talk:Anchor baby/Archive 1

message: ===Removal of "Xenophobia"===
*I just feel that the link to Xenophobia has little or nothing to do with this article, and seems biased. Although the term jackpot baby is a moniker used by U.S. media personalities, this does not suggest that these "media personalities" suffer from Xenophobia in any way, shape, or form. (The link was removed March, 26th, 2006)
===Anchor baby===
This term appears to be a synonym of "anchor baby", which is the more common term, I believe. Is there any reasons we should not merge them? Are the terms so different we can't handle them together? -Will Beback 08:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From Jackpot baby

message: This term appears to be a synonym of "anchor baby", which is the more common term, I believe. Is there any reasons we should not merge them? Are the terms so different we can't handle them together? -Will Beback 08:04, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Anchor baby

message: I added some information about the Fourteenth Amendment, and some information about currently proposed legislation.  I also tried to clean as much bias as possible out of the definition.  The previous one was simply too opinionated, and read as though written by someone who hated the term.  I must say, I had always thought that everyone born in the US was an automatic citizen, until I researched this.  I could find no Act of Congress which actually grants citizenship to the domestically born children of foreign nationals.  As near as I can tell, someone, somewhere just decided it was so, and it became common sense. (May 1st, 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.15.222.166 (talk • contribs) .
:Please don't add novel legal interpretations based on your own reading of the Constitution and case law. As it happens, the practice of giving citizenship to the native-born children of foreign nations is part of the common law and has been recognized since beofer the 14th amendment. 
:*It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.
:*The decision in Elk v. Wilkins concerned only members of the Indian tribes within the United States, and had no tendency to deny citizenship to children born in the United States of foreign parents of Caucasian, African, or Mongolian descent, not in the diplomatic service of a foreign country.
:And so on. -Will Beback 00:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will point out that in both Elk v. Wilkins, and Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court reviewed the historical precedent (pre-Constitution and pre-14th Amendment), and found that both jus sangui and jus soli were practiced in the different jurisdictions, without any particular uniformity.  Jus soli was more common, but its applications to foreigners was varied.  For example, some jurisdictions didn't recognize the children of visitors, while others did. Magic pumpkin 21:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal Terms Added

message: An editor changed the adjective describing the term "anchor baby" from "pejorative" to "colloquial" with the edit summary "in no way is it intended to be pejorative". I beg to differ. The term is only used by immigration restrictionists, immigration reductionists, and racists to label the children of "illegal" immigrants. The use of the term is pejorative in that it presumes that children born to these immigrants are born specifically and only for the purpose of "anchoring" the family in the U.S. This supposition is offensive to the children and the families they are born into because it assumes that the children are being birthed for financial gain and doesn't take into consideration a wide range of other factors that bring about children. The term may be colloquial, but it is also highly offensive, and denigrates the children and their parents.--Rockero 20:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The only use I've ever seen is derogatory. I don't know how we can judge the intended usage- we have to rely on the actual usage. -Will Beback 21:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term is often used in presentations, papers, and news articles.  However, I do agree that it can be used in a derogatory manner; although, that honor, it seems, is more often reserved for Jackpot Baby.  I think the best solotion is to leave it adjective-less, with reference to its sometimes offensive character.  Since we have merged Jackpot Baby with this article, the term should be mentioned.  As to the history of these terms, do we really know from where they originated? Magic pumpkin 21:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because a term is used as derogatory by some or many people does not make it so. Often times people are refered to as conservativeor as liberal... often as talk show hosts, reporters and activists, not just politicans. Both times it is as a way to place insult to the person it is refering to (liberal judges, conservative radio host). But these are not prejorative. Likewise, the term "anchor" is a descriptive term meant to describe the situation, not what a mother would call their own child. So, when somebody like myself uses anchor baby, it is to place a desciption that explains the real occurance (there, you now have seen the term used without hate or prejuduce). So I say we should remove the adjective "prejorative" or add a second sentance stating the some or many people believe the term to be so. Otherwise we would have most adjectives that might be offensive like "fat", "liberal", "christian", "powerful" and and race aimed descriptor. 68.48.174.136 14:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pejorative 

message: Wikipedia already has a nice definition for Wong Kim Ark (WKA).  For purposes of being concise, this section was shortened to include only the immediatley applicable facts of WKA.  Specifically, I am refering to Paragraphs 2, "Wong Kim Ark was born in", through 4 (exclusive), "There have been several subsequent".  Paragraph 3 mostly contained snippets from the decision; however, containing random snippets, cited out of context, is befitting of an AP news wire, not a proper definition.  More importantly, these snippets were either moot, not part of the actual opinion (although cited as such), or cited with improper context. The first, was the opinion of the the Collector of Customs, which was overturned.  The second quotation was NOT the opinion of the court.  It was a fact presented to the court, which both parties (plaintif and defendant) were in agreement to, and restated in the sumary of the ruling.  The third was indeed part of Section V of the opinion, but it's context is as a hypothesis, not a conclusion.
Also, in paragraph I, the phrase, "the Supreme Court extended U.S. jurisdiction to include all aliens", was incorrect.  The decision in WKA is only applied to the children of aliens who are amicably within the US with the permission of the US, as indicated by the conclusions of the High Court:
:*The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance-also called 'ligealty,' 'obedience,' 'faith,' or 'power'-of the king. The principle embraced all persons born within the king's allegiance, and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual,-as expressed in the maxim, 'Protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem,'-and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance; but were predicable of aliens in amity, so long as they were within the kingdom. -The finding in Section II of the ruling.
:*Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States. -The finding in Section VI of the ruling.
:*The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative. -The Order of the Court.
One might even say that the Court's opinion is exclusive of persons born within the US to those without permission to be in it.  But at the present time, that would be argumentative.  The only correct statement that can be made, is that the Court's decision only applies to aliens legally residing within the territory of the US. 
 
This is perhaps a winded part of the discussion, but the topic is sensitive, and we should be as factual as possible.Magic pumpkin 16:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the majority opinion in Plyler v. Doe, and in particular, see footnote 10 of the majority opinion, in which Wong Kim Ark is cited to support the concept that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is used in a "predominantly geographic sense".  Plyler v. Doe upheld the right to a public education of children who were illegal immigrants (not "anchor babies"), and it's hard for me to see how Wong Kim Ark could be used, even in passing, to support such a right if that phrase applied only to people legally in the US.  While it is true that Wong Kim Ark's parents were legal immigrants, I think it's speculative to assume that a case involving an "anchor baby" born to illegal immigrants would obviously be distinguished from Wong Kim Ark on this basis.  Richwales 06:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Wong Kim Ark

message: I recommend that this article's name be changed to Anchor baby/PRUCOL as some people consider 'Anchor baby' to be pejorative, though it is the name must people are familiar with and, so, should not be removed.  I also recommend that redirects from PRUCOL and 'Anchor baby' be created and pointed to the new article.71.74.209.82 20:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article should retain its current name without additions.  Just because some consider it perjorative is not grounds for change.  In regards to the 14th amendment merge, I think they should be kept separate, with the 14th amendment article focused more on the legal aspect and this article focused more on the social phenomenon.  Happy edititng, TheKaplan 22:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur.  Simply because some people take offense to a term is no reason to abandon an article.  Not only that, but the term 'Anchor Baby' is widely used in various publications.  Even testimony before Congress, provided by recognized scholars, uses the term.  As for cutting and pasting the 14th Amendment article into this one..... As with all articles in Wikipedia, things change here and there.  For example, as this issue is being more thoroughly investigated, many researchers are finding that Wong Kim Ark, the ruling frequently cited as giving the domestic children of illegal aliens citizenship, actually excludes the children of illegals.  The 14th Amendment article has been recently updated to properly reflect this, but those updates won't be automatically reflected here.  In fact, I think we may have too much legal content within this article, which is frequently edited by people who have not thoroughly researched their edits. Magic pumpkin 21:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anchor baby/PRUCOL 

message: I cleaned up the language in the first paragraph to make it flow better and to reflect a less biased point of view. Hope you like it.Morlesg 18:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition 

message: I'm working my way through the video files on the Souder site to find which one has Souder saying that "Anchor baby" is pejorative.  Perhaps the footnote should include the date and title of the source video.  Its not a reference if it doesn't tell you where to find the source (its rather like saying "the source is in that library over there").  I'm going to treat it as an unreferenced statement unless a more precise reference is provided.Psychohistorian 11:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My logging in earier anonymously was an honest mistake, not a sockpuppetry.  As for your edit, Ill come back to it later.Psychohistorian 02:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another citation:  -Will Beback 03:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The opinion of shrill illegal alien mouthpiece Raul Contreras that "Anchor Baby" is pejorative should have little weight.BulldogPete 11:34, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the piece carefully you'll see it's the reporter who calls the term "pejorative".  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 20:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the piece carefully, you'll see the reporter is paraphrasing ethnic huckster Contreras's views.BulldogPete 10:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, but it's just one of several sources.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 22:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Two citations look pretty solid.  Personally, I'd prefer three (I tend to think of that as a rule of thumb), but that's a personal standard.  I'm content with two.Psychohistorian 16:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm...  Shouldn't this be in the earlier section on Pejorative?  It is very common to find the adjective used by hispanic writers.  However, pejorative is no longer accurate (if it ever was) when applied to "Anochor Baby". Please reply to my suggestion in the previous section.  Also, it might be nice (if possible) to find the actual origin/earliest use of the phrase. Magic pumpkin 21:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: pejorative?

message: Disagree.  Anchor baby is not more important than the amendment.72.200.62.214 13:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Fourteenth Amendment 

message: Someone added the "verify" tag with no comments on this page. That is not helpful. In your opinion what needs to be added, changed or supported with sources. Morlesg 09:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tag 

message: "They insist on a strict Jus sanguinis, "right of blood", process for obtaining the rights of nationality."  I don't think a person can be naturalized by any means in a strict Jus sanguinis process.  So, I don't think this statement in the article is true. -Psychohistorian 11:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the phrase "at birth" to this section, to make it clear that the point being argued is whether or not a given individual should acquire citizenship at birth.  Naturalization is a totally separate issue.  Richwales 15:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: strict Jus sanguinis

message: I'm still confused about suggestions I've heard that the concept of being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States could be split into subcategories — e.g., that an illegal alien (or an anchor baby) could be subject to U.S. jurisdiction for purposes of criminal law, but not subject to U.S. jurisdiction for purposes of jus soli citizenship.
It seems pretty clear to me that if illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children were declared to be immune from U.S. jurisdiction (in order to deny U.S. citizenship to the children), an inevitable — and unwanted — side effect would be that illegal aliens would have to be treated the same as foreign diplomats (with diplomatic immunity and subject only to being declared persona non grata and deported).
Otherwise, I would expect the courts to rule that exempting "anchor babies" from U.S. jurisdiction was merely a political ploy designed to deny them U.S. citizenship, but without truly granting the kind of immunity from the laws that has long been granted to foreign diplomats.
I would propose to at least bring up this issue in the article — and probably make other edits in order to come close to achieving NPOV.  Comments, anyone?  Richwales 01:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will see what I can find in terms of an answer, might take a couple of days though. Iirc this issue was breached somewhere in Wong Kim Ark, but don’t hold me to that just yet. Also I remember seeing the same thing brought up somewhere else that was authoritative, but have no idea where atm. I would suspect that the two could be legally separated. The question itself is worth pursuing. Brimba 03:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Wow, this topic seems to be all over the discussion page.  Please people, continue the discussions where they are, instead of adding new ones.  As for the multiple faces of jurisdiction.... read my responses in the earlier topics.  Also, this page is mainly for the discussion of the article.  If you disagree with the way something IS, and therefore don't understand it, this is not the place to ask or argue about it. Magic pumpkin 21:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can "jurisdiction" really be split into subcategories?? 

message: I've noticed that the term is becoming used more and more in a racist connotation  by hate groups to describe hispanics in general, regardless of knowledge of their ancestry.  For example, I've noticed that on the SOS forums, the term "anchor baby" is included with other racist language that is shouted at protesting hispanics.  Glenn Spencer of American Patrol also favors the word when referring to some hispanics even if he has little knowledge of their ancestry.  Does anyone else agree that this should be included in the article? Mosquito-001 14:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not unless you can source it.  What you are discussing above is original research. -Psychohistorian 12:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No just thinking about researching. Relax, no editing has been done to the article.  At least not on my end.  I am merely discussing the possibility of researching(sources and everything) another use of the term.  If one or two people are using the term as a racist term in general or the definition is too fuzzy, I won't bother. Mosquito-001 20:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any properly sourced and relevant content is something I'd welcome.  If you can properly source it according to Wiki policy, I say "go ahead". -Psychohistorian 16:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turning into a racist term 

message: The two listed sources say unequivocally that this is a pejorative term. If editors want to say that it is only sometimes used as a pejoriatve, then they need to find a source which says so.  -Will Beback 12:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll start by saying read my section above about this topic. That said, just because two sources say it's prejorative doesn't make it so, either. I can find tons of sources that say that elephants are not endagered, but taking over the world (see Stephen Colbert's entry vandalism). That doesn't mean it's true. Opinion is one view. Otherwise there wouldn't be controversies like Global Warming, Evolution vs Creationism, or Islamist Terrorism. The term "prejorative" itself is prejorative in this case. And until you can get interviews from everbody in the world to cite, those sources already listed are merely citations that show "some people concider the term prejorative". 68.48.174.136 14:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you give an example of it being used in a non-pejorative sense, or even better, of someone saying that it isn't pejorative? -Will Beback · † · 20:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The characterization of the term as a pejorative has been sourced. How does it violate WP:NPOV? Does anyone claim that it isn't pejorative? -Will Beback · † · 22:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Please sign your talk post contributions. Wikipedia is based on verifiable sources. We have two sources which call it a pejorative term. -Will Beback · † · 01:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, the Souder reference is a direct quote. Please don't edit it. -Will Beback · † · 01:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: PS: Including the Souder quotation it's actually three sources. -Will Beback · † · 02:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless someone can provide a counter-source I'm going to revert the deletion. -Will Beback · † · 22:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sometimes"