Defending Trump: “Anchor Baby” Is Accurate. It Is Only Offensive To Those Who Want To Change The Subject

Anchor babyABC reporter Tom Llamas confronted Donald Trump this week over his use of the term “anchor baby,” saying it was an offensive slur.

“That’s an offensive term! People find that hurtful,” he said.

“You mean it’s not politically correct, and yet everybody uses it,”replied Trump, who apparently must include at least one unethical rationalization in every sentence.

The fact, you idiot, that “everybody uses it” doesn’t make it right.

“Look it up in the dictionary,” Llamas yelled. “It’s offensive!” Gee, I’m sorry, Tom, I don’t let the dictionary tell me how I can express myself, and neither should Trump. The dictionaries reflect the fact that pro-illegal immigration forces have warped the use of language. I assume pretty soon the dictionary will declare any term for illegal immigrants that distinguishes them from law-abiding, wait-in-line, pay-the-fees,  legal immigrants is similarly “offensive.”

“I’ll use the word anchor baby. Excuse me! I’ll use the word anchor baby!” Trump said.

So will I.

Anchor baby.

Today, Jeb Bush correctly—and without using a rationalization!—defended the use of “anchor baby.”

“Do you have a better term? You give me a better term and I’ll use it,” he said to a reporter who challenged him.

No, there isn’t a better term, and “a child born to a noncitizen mother in US for the purpose of providing an advantage to family members seeking to secure citizenship or legal residency” takes too long to say. The term is accurate and descriptive, and the reason it is being called “offensive” is because it makes a dishonest, exploitive and evasive tactic sound like exactly what it is. It’s a terrific term, in fact. Sorry that the truth hurts.

Right on cue, Hillary’s hired Twitterer answered Jeb’s challenge with this:

“How about “babies,” “children,” or “American citizens.”

Perfect! A perfect example of how pro-illegal immigration advocates want to blur language so the issue is incomprehensible! Does “baby” communicate the unethical device of using the U.S. birthright laws to get entire illegal families into the country for good? When I say “American citizens,” do you think, “Oh! You mean those babies that illegal immigrants try to have in the U.S. so they won’t be deported?”  It’s also a perfect example of how cynical and openly dishonest Hillary Clinton (are her agents and lackeys) are. She knows  “babies,” “children,” or “American citizens” don’t mean the same thing as “anchor babies,” but assumes that her corrupted, ethically-rotted supporters don’t care. The point is to muzzle anyone who accurately calls illegal immigration what it is:

Wrong.

_____________________

Sources: Mediaite, Washington Post

21 thoughts on “Defending Trump: “Anchor Baby” Is Accurate. It Is Only Offensive To Those Who Want To Change The Subject

  1. I’m starting to encounter real, intelligent people who actually support Trump, and it’s because of things like this. He’s independently wealthy, says whatever he wants, and people are increasingly paranoid about the “political machine” and want to support an outsider. There seem to be quite a lot of Leftists supporting him too, or at least social Leftists and Libertarians. If the Obamas and Hillarys of the world would stop using obvious logical fallacies against him, maybe we could get him to go away.

    • Hillary’s response makes me furious, and it takes every fiber of self control I have no to just give up and hate the woman, and even took self-control to use the word “woman” in that last sentence. Trump is a boor, an asshole, a fool, not very smart and with a child’s knowledge of ethics, but he is far less objectionable human being than Hillary Clinton, which I find astounding. She is so black of heart and dishonest of soul, so shameless, so cynical, so willing to deceive.

  2. It surprises me she recognizes anchor babies as babies. Isn’t she the one who thinks a baby is not a baby until the mother says it is?
    Presumably, sometime after it’s born and manages to survive long enough to escape having it’s face cut off while it’s heart is beating.
    Now, that’s offensive.

    • I was going to say much the same thing, Granny. It’s both curious and downright disgusting that these people seem to care only for the lives of foreign babies who can serve to bring more Democrat voters into the country. Now that the debate on this issue has heated to the boiling point, the liberals’ answer is to attempt to squelch the debate by their familiar tactics of taking control of the language and playing the race card. So far, this hasn’t seemed to work for them at all, something which they must find very upsetting, indeed.

  3. There’s a small industry where Chinese women are coming over to hotels in California about a couple of months before they’re due, they give birth there, get the birth certificate and fly home again. It’s their ace in the hole in case things get really bad in China, with the kid’s citizenship they’re planning to immigrate. They just busted one of these operations a a few months ago, raiding 37 such hotels.

    “Chinese women pay as much as $60,000 for a package deal that includes help getting a tourist visa to the US, prenatal care, accommodation for the few months before and after the birth, and advice for how to get past border agents (wear lose clothing and come well before the due date). Another thriving business is helping Chinese women who want American surrogate mothers for similar citizenship reasons.”

    Why can’t people see that this is wrong?

  4. I know of a hospital in the San Gabriel Valley that stopped providing maternity care to anybody. The hospital had been flooded with illegal alien women who had no insurance and ready to have a baby. The hospital was losing the ability to stay solvent and made this decision to avoid going under and closing.

  5. Jack:
    I don’t understand how the practice of birthing a child within the borders of the US created the perception that that would permit the parent to stay within the U.S.

    If I were born to parents with U.S. Citizenship in another country – assuming it too has birthright citizenship – I would not be entitled to demand that my parents stayed in that country because I wanted to stay. Babies and children cannot care for themselves and must rely on their parents for support. If the parent is forced to go back to his/her own country then so too must the child irrespective of his/her citizenship unless another relative of legal status is willing to assume the financial burden and raise the child here in the U.S. I do not see it as de-facto deportation of a U.S. citizen.

    Nothing would stop the child from returning to the U.S. once he or she reached legal adult status if in fact the person is a citizen of the U.S. by virtue of his /her birthplace.

    There seems to be some disagreement over the purpose and scope of the Fourteenth Amendment regarding birthright citizenship. I am not a legal scholar so I will leave that up to others but I do know that Native Americans born in the U.S. are not automatically U.S. citizens because their first allegiance is whatever tribe to which they belong in the Indian Nation. Legislation was passed in the 20’s to grant citizenship to Native Americans but it is voluntary as I understand it.

    • Sure. But in a corrupt system where only criminals are deported as long as an illegal keeps a low profile, the citizen child of say 10 or 12 is perceived as being abused if they are made to leave with Mom and Dad. Think of the children!

    • I think that luck of birth isn’t a good enough standard anyway, at least not by itself. Seems silly to not tie it to some level of parental stability in relation to the receiving nation as well.

      Parents being here for a few days doesn’t seem to cut it in terms of stability.

  6. You should read this:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/republicans-birthright-citizenship_55d4934be4b07addcb44c96a

    Any congressional act aiming to end birthright citizenship for the children of immigrants — a move that squarely targets Latinos — could be found unconstitutional. The same could theoretically be true of a proposed amendment long before it made it into the Constitution.

    Defending illegal immigration rests on a foundation of dishonesty and invincible ignorance. Cristian Farias is a traitor to my country, the United States of America.

    And we all know what traitors deserve.

  7. On a tangential note, I had been waiting for my Green Card so long that my first kid was born before I got it. I received many tongue-in-cheek congratulations for my “anchor baby”.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.