Saturday, May 01, 2010

Should Mike Lee & Tim Bridgewater stop using the term "anchor baby"? Is it dehumanizing?

From Ethan Millard:

As part of his immigration platform, Senate candidate Mike Lee promises to fix the “anchor baby problem”.

“Anchor baby” implies that while you and I have babies out of love, illegal immigrants have babies to trick the United States Government.

You an I may want to build a family, illegal immigrants just want to build an economic advantage. Because they’re not like us. They don’t value the same things we do.

It is a shameful way to maliciously dehumanize illegal immigrants and I call on Mike Lee to remove the language from his website immediately.

In the mean time I would love for Mike Lee to demonstrate how an illegal immigrant can win citizenship by having a baby in the United States.

Even if mainstream Utahns found the term to be dehumanizing, Mike Lee & Tim Bridgewater probably get a lot of mileage from it among Republican delegates.

I tend to agree with Ethan. The term assumes that illegal immigrants only have children to game the system. The baby is not a person but a means to an ends. The parent-child relationship is one of convenience, not of love.

Seems pretty dehumanizing to me.

So, what do you think? Is the term “anchor baby” dehumanizing or is Ethan Millard wrong?


ALiberalMormon said...

Yep. It's just more divisive, boogieman politics. Pretty despicable.

arc said...

I don't like the term.

Birthright Citizenship can be discussed, clarified, modified, or changed.

Immigration: We need to remove and not create any rewards and incentives for immigrants to come here and be here illegally.

We also need to remember to treat people with as people. What happened to respect.