It flabbergasts me. All of this discussion about the
offensiveness of the term “Anchor Baby” and so on during which one bright mind
suggested we say “American-born child of an undocumented worker”. Really? I
mean, really? Is that brain trust
serious that every time the subject of children born here to an illegal
immigrant mother comes up we’re supposed to say, “American-born child of an undocumented
worker”?
How stupid is that!?
Say it like it is. Stop the politically correct bullshit, stop the nonsense and
just be honest for a change. Who doesn't understand what's meant when that term is used? It's not ambiguous. It's not vague. It's clear, concise and accurate. In short, it is precisely what language is intended for: to communicate what's meant.
Just for the sake of crystal clarity, let’s posit a probable, or at
least a realistically possible scenario.
“M” doesn’t know she’s pregnant when “E” comes home after
losing his job somewhere in Mexico or Honduras or Guatemala or wherever they live. There’s no money, no hope, but “E” or “M” or maybe both have
family that crossed the border ten years ago without benefit of documentation. “J”
and “A” have been asking “E” and “M” or “M” and “E” to come north for years.
What the heck? Why not? There’s nothing here, right now.
Maybe the grass is greener, so let’s go. They get what money they can, get their stuff together, and head off.
Somewhere along the way
“M” realizes she’s knocked up… sorry, that’s offensive. She’s with child.
(Better?)
They make it into Arizona or California or Texas or New Mexico, whatever. A few months later, wherever they’ve
ended up, she goes into labor and boom
there’s a new baby.
According to current precedent, that baby is an American
citizen, which means that that baby, just 30 seconds old, has all of the rights
and prerequisites other American citizens have. The right to collect welfare
benefits and all the rest of it.
Not one member of that family has contributed a single penny
to the welfare system, but Mom is entitled to child support, a child tax credit
if she files for taxes, food stamps,
housing benefits and everything else – all because she has a 30 second old child. When it's old enough to start school, it will get a free education - all of it - benefits and education - at the expense of the American taxpayer.
What other country in the world does that? Name one, just
one that gives automatic citizenship to the child of someone in the country
illegally. I mean, we are not even talking about someone who came here legally on a visa. If she had been here on a work visa, the child
does not qualify. If she's here on a student visa, the child does not qualify. But! Because the mother is here
illegally – against the law – her child is a citizen.
How does that
work?
Oh, yeah. There’s a lot of chatter about the Fourteenth
Amendment right now. Well, just what does that Amendment say? Let’s look…
Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, Okay, so far, so good. It’s
clear. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof Now, this for me, is where it breaks down. ‘Subject to the jurisdiction
thereof’. If the parents aren’t American citizens, they are not subject to the
U.S. Constitution – unless they commit a felony. For misdemeanors, like being
here without a visa, they get rounded up and deported. They have no more rights than that. The parents aren’t
subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. As a minor, that child has no rights
except those given to the parents. So how does that child suddenly become a
U.S. citizen? are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein
they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the
laws.
Section 2.
Representatives shall be apportioned
among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the
whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when
the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and
Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive
and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is
denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of
the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in
rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced
in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the
whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. Straight boilerplate in this section that
just benefits the politicians, as everything always seems to do. The more
people in the state – legally or not – the more seats in the House of
Representatives.
Section 3.
No person shall be a Senator or
Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold
any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state,
who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer
of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an
executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the
United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the
same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a
vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability. Again, boilerplate that doesn’t mean a whole lot.
Section 4.
The validity of the public debt of the
United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of
pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,
shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall
assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or
rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation
of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal
and void. This comes straight from the
time this Amendment was drafted – following the end of the Civil War when the
question of the freed slaves and their rights to citizenship were being
addressed and discussed.
Now, that said, those people or their forebears were forcibly brought here.
They didn’t raise their hands and volunteer. Big difference in that. Some
redress, for being kidnapped, stolen, whatever you want to call it isn’t
unreasonable in that case. But when an individual makes a conscious choice to
break another country’s law… No. You don’t reward them – whether or not they
drop their anchor baby… Oops, sorry. That’s harsh so let’s call it what it
really is: “Child born in the United States to an undocumented female worker in
the country without permission from the Federal Government because she couldn’t
be arsed to follow the law and get in line behind everyone else who is trying
to work through the process honorably.”
Section 5.
The Congress shall have power to
enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. So here’s the rest of it. This doesn’t have
to go to the Supreme Court. This can be dealt with by Congress – HOPEFULLY,
after we get some real, honest to God ball-bearing conservatives in there.
In the meantime, I guess we’ll have to
come up with some pronounceable acronym for these children. One that’s
acceptable to the left who sees no problem with people breaking the laws of
this country. Unfortunately, “ABCUW” doesn’t flow smoothly whereas “anchor baby”
does, which is the purpose of language – to communicate meaning. Say it,
everyone gets it.
Which raises another question: how many
of these liberal lefties who lift their nose at the nation’s laws call the cops
every year? Since these scofflaws see no problem with lawbreakers, maybe they
shouldn’t be allowed to call the cops. Just think how much money that would save.
So – use the term as you will. Don’t get your knickers
knotted over it because it is, just as bullshit is, offensive to some but
instantly recognizable in its meaning.
Have a linguistic day.
Best~
Philippa
Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories
