This is an accepted version of this page
Anchor baby is a term—regarded by some as apejorative[1][2]—referring to a child born to non-citizen parents in a country that hasbirthright citizenship, which will therefore help the parents and other family members gain citizenship or legal residency[3] and/or avoid deportation in said country. In the U.S., the term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as anAmerican citizen underjus soli and the rights guaranteed in theFourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.[4][5][6] The term is also often used in the context of the debate overillegal immigration to the United States.[7] A similar term, "passport baby", has been used in Canada for children born through so-called "maternity" or "birth tourism".[8][9]
A related term,anchor child, referring in this case to "very young immigrants who will later sponsor immigration for family members who are still abroad", was used in reference toVietnamese boat people from about 1987.[7][10][11][12][13] In 2002 in theIrish High Court,Bill Shipsey used the term to refer to an Irish-born child whose family were his clients; in the 2003Supreme Court judgment upholding the parents' deportation,Adrian Hardiman commented on the novelty of both the term and concomitant argument.[14] (In Irelandjus soli citizenship wasabolished in 2004.)
"Anchor baby" appeared in print in 1996, but remained relatively obscure until 2006, when it found new prominence amid the increased focus on theimmigration debate in the United States.[4][7][13][15] The term is generally considered pejorative.[16] Analysis of news usage, internet links, and search engine rankings indicate thatFox News andNewsmax were pivotal in popularizing the term in the mid and late 2000s.[17] In 2011 theAmerican Heritage Dictionary added an entry for the term in the dictionary's new edition, which did not indicate that the term was disparaging. Following a critical blog piece by Mary Giovagnoli, the director of the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigration research group in Washington, the dictionary updated its online definition to indicate that the term is "offensive", similar to its entries on ethnic slurs.[15][18] As of 2012[update], the definition reads:
n. Offensive 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.
The decision to revise the definition led to some criticism from immigration opponents, such as theCenter for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.[19]
In 2012,UtahAttorney GeneralMark Shurtleff, in a meeting designed to promote the 2010Utah Compact declaration as a model for a federal government approach to immigration, said that "The use of the word 'anchor baby' when we're talking about a child of God is offensive."[20]
Several journalists and public figures in the United States have been criticized for using the termanchor baby.[21][22][23][24] InAustralia in 2019, then-Home Affairs MinisterPeter Dutton used "anchor babies" to label the two Australian-born children of theMurugappan asylum seeker family,[25][26] which opposition politicianKristina Keneally said was an attempt to import American debates that were not relevant to Australia.[27]
As of 2015[update], Los Angeles is considered the center of the maternity tourism industry, which caters mostly to wealthy Asian women;[28] authorities in the city there closed 14 maternity tourism "hotels" in 2013.[29] The industry is difficult to close down since it is not illegal for a pregnant woman to travel to the U.S.[29]
On March 3, 2015 federal agents inLos Angeles conducted a series of raids on three "multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses" expected to produce the "biggest federal criminal case ever against the booming 'anchor baby' industry", according toThe Wall Street Journal.[29][30]
In 2005, Ireland amended itsconstitution to become the last country in Europe to abolish unconditionaljus soli citizenship, as a direct result of concerns over birth tourism. A headline case wasChen v Home Secretary, whereby a Chinese temporary migrant living in mainlandUnited Kingdom travelled toBelfast,Northern Ireland to give birth to her daughter for the purpose of obtaining Irish citizenship for her daughter (Ireland'sjus soli law extends to all parts of theisland of Ireland, including Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK). The daughter'sIrish citizenship was then used by her parents to obtain permanent residence in the UK as the parents of a dependent EU citizen.[31]
TheCitizenship Clause of theFourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." TheSupreme Court of the United States affirmed inUnited States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898),[a] that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanentdomicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38]
Most constitutional scholars agree that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides birthright citizenship even to those born in the United States to illegal immigrants.[32][39][40][41][42] Edward Erler, writing for theClaremont Institute in 2007, said that since theWong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of undocumented immigrants must surely be excluded from citizenship.[43]
However, inPlyler v. Doe,457 U.S. 202 (1982),[b] a case involving educational entitlements for children in the United States unlawfully, Justice Brennan, writing for a five-to-four majority, held that such persons were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus protected by its laws. In a footnote, he observed, "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful."[32][36][44] In 2006 judgeJames Chiun-Yue Ho, whoPresident Donald Trump would later appoint to theUnited States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, wrote in a law review article that with thePlyler decision "any doubt was put to rest" whether the 1898Wong Kim Ark decision applied to illegal aliens because "all nine justices agreed that theEqual Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike. And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens."[36][42]
In 2010, statistics showed that a significant, and rising, number of undocumented immigrants were having children in the United States, but there is mixed evidence that acquiring citizenship for the parents was their goal.[34] According toPolitiFact, the immigration benefits of having a child born in the United States are limited. Citizen children cannot sponsor parents for entry into the country until they are 21 years of age, and if the parent had ever been in the country illegally, they would have to show they had left and not returned for at least ten years; however, pregnant and nursing mothers could receive food vouchers through the federalWIC (Women, Infants and Children) program and enroll the children in Medicaid.[34]
Parents of citizen children who have been in the country for ten years or more can also apply for relief from deportation, though only 4,000 persons a year can receive relief status; as such, according to PolitiFact, having a child in order to gain citizenship for the parents is "an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process."[34] Approximately 88,000 legal-resident parents of US citizen children were deported in the 2000s, most for minor criminal convictions.[45]
Somecritics of illegal immigration claim the United States' "birthright citizenship" is an incentive for illegal immigration, and that immigrants come to the country to give birth specifically so that their child will be an American citizen. The majority of children of illegal immigrants in the United States are citizens, and the number has risen. According to aPew Hispanic Center report, an estimated 73% of children of illegal immigrants were citizens in 2008, up from 63% in 2003. A total of 3.8 million illegal immigrants had at least one child who is an American citizen. In investigating a claim byU.S. SenatorLindsey Graham,PolitiFact found mixed evidence to support the idea that citizenship was the motivating factor.[34] PolitiFact concludes that "[t]he data suggests that the motivator for illegal immigrants is the search for work and a better economic standing over the long term, not quickie citizenship for U.S.-born babies."[34]
There has been a growing trend, especially amongst Asian and African visitors fromHong Kong,China,South Korea,Taiwan andNigeria to the United States,[46][47] to make use of "Birth Hotels" to secure US citizenship for their child and leave open the possibility of future immigration by the parents to the United States.[48][49] The U.S. government estimates that there were 7,462 births to foreign residents in 2008[50] while theCenter for Immigration Studies estimates that 40,000 births are born to "birth tourists" annually.[51] Pregnant women typically spend around $20,000 to stay in the facilities during their final months of pregnancy and an additional month to recuperate and await their new baby's U.S. passport.[52] In some cases, the birth of a Canadian[53] or American[54] child to mainland Chinese parents is a means to circumvent theone-child policy inChina;[55]Hong Kong[56] and theNorthern Mariana Islands[57] were also popular destinations before more restrictive local regulation impeded traffic. Some prospective mothers misrepresent their intentions of coming to the United States, a violation of U.S. immigration law and as of January 24, 2020 it became U.S. consular policy to denyB visa applications from applicants whom the consular officer has reason to believe are traveling for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for their child.[58]
anchor baby: a derogatory term for a child born in the United States to an immigrant. Since these children automatically qualify as American citizens, they can later act as a sponsor for other family members.
'They use it to spark resentment against immigrants,' Rivlin said of his ideological foes. 'They use it to make these children sound non-human.' To me, that's good enough reason to regret having used it and to decide not to use it in the future.
U.S. citizens must be age 21 or older to file petitions for siblings or parents.
Anchor baby:n. a child born of an immigrant in the United States, said to be a device by which a family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose American citizenship. Alsoanchor child, a very young immigrant who will later sponsor citizenship for family members who are still abroad.
They are "anchor children," saddled with the extra burden of having to attain a financial foothold in America to sponsor family members who remain in Vietnam.
Known as "anchor" children, aid workers say the youngsters are put on boats by families who hope they'll be resettled in the United States or Canada and can then apply to have their families join them.
We argue that the main source of the anchor baby boom of, approximately, 2007‐10 is the segmented news site newsmax.com. In tandem with foxnews.com, in the mid‐2000s
We should adjust our policies – and let the world know we have done so – to minimize the benefits illegal alien parents get for having anchor babies in the U.S. Exactly how the law should be changed is another question, to be addressed later, but one thing is immediately clear: there ought to be a firm administrative policy of denying entrance to very pregnant tourists and border crossers – and there is no such policy at the moment.
The next big immigration battle centers on illegal immigrants' offspring, who are granted automatic citizenship like all other babies born on American soil. Arguing for an end to the policy, which is rooted in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, immigration hard-liners describe a wave of migrants like Ms. Vasquez stepping across the border in the advanced stages of pregnancy to have what are dismissively called 'anchor babies.'
Wong Kim Ark.