La Opinion (Editorial
August 22, 2015
There
is nothing more derogatory than the term “anchor baby.” It cynically
assumes that, for undocumented families, having children is part of a
Machiavellian plan to
use their children as an “anchor” to stay in the U.S. and be spared
from deportation. Anyone listening to the current immigration debate in
the Republican presidential primary campaign would think that one of the
main concerns in the U.S. is some sort of hoard
of pregnant women waiting to cross the border to give birth.
It
is true that immigrants come to this country searching for better
opportunities for their families than the ones their native countries
offer them. While U.S. citizenship
has its advantages, it does not necessarily prevent parents from being
deported, as many split families have already seen. There is also a
growing underground business in places like Los Angeles, where wealthy
Chinese families come to the U.S. to give birth
to their babies so that they can enjoy the advantages granted to
citizens ‒ such as access to higher education, ‒ only to return to their
country afterwards. These situations are not the same and must be dealt
with differently.
The
term “anchor baby” was first uttered in the House of Representatives by
the most recalcitrant Congress members ‒ such as Iowa’s Steve King,
known for insulting undocumented
people by comparing them to dogs and cattle, among other pejorative
expressions.
The idea to reform or reinterpret the 14th Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution was born within the Congress’ conservative,
anti-immigrant universe. The amendment establishes
that all people born in the U.S. and under its jurisdiction are
citizens.
King,
Donald Trump and those who hop on their anti-immigrant train may argue
about technicalities and pretend that there is no jurisdictional
distinction between a diplomat
and an undocumented person when it comes to having children in the
U.S., but that is not the case. Changing this would require
constitutional reform.
“Anchor
babies” are an imaginary problem that exists in the heads and the words
of demagogues. Using the term is offensive, and a less-harsh word ‒ as
the one Jeb Bush
excused himself for not knowing ‒ does not exist, simply because it is
an insult and nothing less.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment