Bush’s use of ‘anchor babies’ shameful, off-base
Frank Cerabino
There’s a rotten core to the words “anchor babies,” an expression that took center stage in Republican presidential politics last week.
Donald Trump wants to deport the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants, even though these children are considered American citi- zens under the birthright citizenship provision in the U.S. Constitution.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush disagrees with Trump’s interpretation of constitutional law, but like Trump, he used the pejorative term “anchor babies” while talking about them in a radio interview, then defended the expression to reporters afterward.
“Do you have a better term?” Bush said. “You give me a better term, and I’ll use it.”
Bush said he was just using the words, “anchor babies,”
because that’s what other people call them.
“What I said is that it’s commonly referred to that,” Bush said. “I didn’t use it as my own language.”
But that’s like calling people from Central America “beaners” and justifying it by saying that you’re just passing on some other people’s language.
Bush knows better. He used to counsel his fellow Republicans to tone down their ugly rhetoric on immigration.
And “anchor babies” is among the worst of that rhetoric. Not only is it offensive, it’s also misleading.
I looked back to see how “anchor babies” found its way into the political lexicon. The first reference to “anchor babies” was a news story in September 1999:
“Anchor babies due within weeks of each oth- er, again,” the headline said.
But it was a story about two Florida TV news anchors expecting the births of their of their babies within weeks of each other.
It would be three years later, in July 2002, before I found the first reference to the words as we know them today. It was in an item in The Washington Times written by syndicated columnist John McCaslin about a group called Project USA.
“It’s called birthright citizenship, and its related phenomenon has been dubbed ‘anchor babies,’ ” McCaslin wrote.
“The United States, says immigration watchdog group Project USA, grants automatic citizenship to babies born in this country to illegal aliens, temporary workers, even tourists,” the column continued. “The babies can eventually ‘anchor’ their extended families in the United States, thus precipitating an unlimited number of ‘chain immi- Read Frank Cerabino’s recent columns online at grants’ with the right to immigrate.”
The column went on to say how Project USA was supporting the end of birthright citizenship, which has been sanctioned under the 14th Amendment, which reads: “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.”
And what was this Project USA, this “immigration watchdog group” that became the early adopter to this “anchor babies” expression? It was a group that disparaged the idea of America as a country of immigrants, and claimed that we were losing our European-based culture through our immigration policies.
It got its message out by putting up hundreds of billboards across America.
“Tired of traffic? Everyday, another 6,000 immigrants arrive,” a billboard in Brooklyn read.
The billboards drew so much criticism over their xenophobic messages that sign companies eventually refused to put them up.
That fringe group’s message has now become much closer to the core of the Republican Party’s position on immigration, and its vocabulary has been adopted by the political right, especially U.S. Rep. Steve King of Iowa, who now refers to the “anchor babies agenda” of undocumented immigrants.
King’s other contribution to the immigration issue was to say that for every undocumented immigrant who becomes a valedictorian, “there’s another 100 out there who weigh 130 pounds and they’ve got calves the size of cantaloupes because they’re hauling 75 pounds of marijuana across the desert.”
It’s also instructive to consider the alleged anchoring ability of these so-called “anchor babies.”
If you’re born in this country to undocumented immigrants, there’s nothing you can do to help your parents or other family members stay here until you’re 21 years old.
All during that intervening time, the undocumented family members are subject to deportation, and many have been.
Furthermore, the success of the petition to get U.S. green cards relies on the ability of that 21-year old “anchor baby” to support his or her family members financially without receiving welfare or other need-based government assistance for them.
And in order to be eligible for legal status, the undocumented relatives have to return to their home country, and then petition the U.S. for re-en- try. If it is determined that they had been living in the U.S. illegally for more than a year, a 10-year wait is imposed on their request to return.
That’s 31 years of limbo, and not much of an anchor. But it’s an effective rallying cry for fearmongers and political opportunists like Trump, who has embraced the term “anchor babies” and talks about deporting them.
“I don’t think they have American citizenship and if you speak to some very, very good lawyers — and I know some will disagree, but many of them agree with me — and you’re going to find they do not have American citizenship,” Trump said last week.
For Bush to disagree timidly and then echo Trump’s concern over “anchor babies” is a sign that Bush’s once-enlightened view of immigration has started to sink toward the bottom.