If “Anchor Babies” is Too Incendiary, How About “Anchor Fetuses”?

When the New York Times avoids referring to a term directly in the headline you know it’s a forbidden term. For example, when they had the torturous task of writing about partial birth abortions, they didn’t have a liberalspeak euphamism for it, so wrote articles with vague titles like “Republicans call for banning a procedure”. Now we’re seeing this again in an article entitled “Discussing Immigration, Donald Trump and Jeb Bush Use an Offensive Term“. The term is so offensive that it couldn’t be mentioned in the article.

What is this terrible term?

Anchor babies.

In 2011, it was defined by the American Heritage Dictionary as, “A child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family.”

But after protests from immigration advocacy groups who complained that the language is a demeaning slur, the dictionary labeled it as “offensive.”

Control the language and you control the debate. Anchor babies is meant to be a derogatory term because what the parents of said babies are doing is stealing citizenship for their children and eventually for themselves through chain migration. It would be the same if parents robbed a bank and gave the money to their children who were then called “robber babies”. The fact that the term is now permissible again I think is also attributable to Donald Trump, who recently won back for us the right to use the term “illegal aliens” for illegal aliens.