ILW.COM - the immigration portal Immigration Daily

Home Page

Immigration Daily


Processing times

Immigration forms

Discussion board



Twitter feed

Immigrant Nation


CLE Workshops

Immigration books

Advertise on ILW

VIP Network




Connect to us

Make us Homepage



The leading
immigration law
publisher - over
50000 pages of
free information!
Immigration LLC.

View RSS Feed

Greg Siskind on Immigration Law and Policy


Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average.

In the last few months, the term "anchor baby" has taken on a certain cache with anti-immigrant folks like Ms. Michele Malkin and Mr. Lou Dobbs.  The term refers to the children of immigrants who are conferred citizenship by virtue of their birth in this country. Some would limit the use to the children of illegal aliens, while many extend it to children of those on work and tourist visas. Others argue that anyone born in the US to parents on work, student, tourist visas, etc. would be an "anchor baby".

I think it's fair to call it like it is - calling someone an "anchor baby" is a form of hate speech. The term is used in an effort to dehumanize a whole class of American citizens. By stigmatizing the American children of immigrants, these bigots seek to turn millions of Americans in to second class citizens. There have been many other societies in the past which tried to de-legitimized the children of immigrants. I know because I've filed asylum cases for people with horrific stories involving their membership in a persecuted group of this sort.

America has always had better instincts. Immigrants have succeeded in this country more than any other because we focus as a country on welcoming immigrants and making them in to new Americans, not just barely tolerated foreigners. Their children are not second class citizens and just as American as the children of those who trace their roots to Plymouth Rock.

Because I believe the term is offensive and demeaning, I intend to delete posts that use it in a derogatory way). If people want to discuss the term itself and how it is being used in hate speech, I'd consider that to be appropriate. Some of the anti-immigrant folks out there are no doubt going to accuse me of being a censor. And so be it. They can use the term on your own blogs (and don't seem to have any hesitancy to do so, of course).

Submit " Submit " Submit " Submit " Submit " Submit " Submit "

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags


Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
  1. You are wrong's Avatar
    But what else is new?
  2. Another Voice's Avatar
    Its unreal that "The Most trusted name in news" channel can have such racist spreading this kind of hate talk across the airwaves everyday. This guy is so short sided and narrow minded unfortunately his followers believe all the hate talk he promotes everyday. Is good to hear that a national publication like USA Today opens up a space for people like Greg to give the other side of the story.
  3. IsNotNull's Avatar
    First and foremost, I want so say that I have the utmost respect for Greg. Yes, I am an immigrant that really appreciates people like Mr. Siskind. Now, I can only laugh at somebody like Michelle Malkin. Yes, Michelle take a real good look at yourself in the mirror... need I say more?
  4. Bigot card pulled again's Avatar
    I can't tell you why I don't agree with Greg Siskind - and I can't even use the words in context because he will delete the post.

    If you think Malkin is racist because of her views, that just goes to show how shallow your thinking is. The "thought nazis" of this world want to intimidate everyone with bigot charge.

    Shame on you Siskind.
  5. Calouste's Avatar
    Well, shame on you, "Bigot card pulled again", that your vocabulary is so limited that you can't explain your standpoint without using offensive language.

    Try to help you replace the offending words and share your thoughts with us.
  6. Robin Hood's Avatar
    Michelle Malkin should shut her sweet and sour *** up, then I will agree with what she says (which should be nothing). Lou Dobbs, well maybe if he lost some weight he'd lighten up (get it?)
  7. Shame on you Calouste's Avatar
    Shame on you Calouste for supporting the limiting of non offensive speech. The word is only offensive in the mind of Greg Siskind - who wants to brand any idea he opposes as racist or anti-immigrant.

    Greg Siskind sees bigotry as a tool to advance his cause. So he creates imaginary bigots - nearly everyone that doesn't agree with him - that way people don't actually think about the issues.

    Greg Siskind is a horrible person for putting the interests of corporations above the interests of immigrants. That makes him an anti-immigrant and an immigrant exploiter.

    And anyone that pulls the bigot card to further their cause is quite simply a disgusting individual. Imagine all the actual cases of bigotry that don't get the attention they deserve because Greg Sisking uses the term so loosely and unjustly. People like him cause harm and enable bigotry. It's like crying fire in a theater when there is no fire.
  8. Robin Hood - your words are offensive towards women and over weight people's Avatar
    I find your comment regarding Malkin as an attack on women everywhere. I find your attack on Lou Dobbs regarding his weight as insensitive.

    I demand that Greg Siskind delete your unkind comments towards women and over-weight people.

    Please don't comment further on the subject of bigotry until you understand just how much of a problem you have.
  9. Robin Hood's Avatar
    What about Lou Dobbs's insensitive and borderline offensive comments toward illegal immigrants? Is that OK with you Mr. Anti-Bigotry? Michelle is another jewel... I guess they can be insensitive because you agree with them. That doesn't seem very objective to me. Hey, the least I can do is make fun of them, and I don't apologize.
  10. i see you roy's Avatar
    welcome back roy lawson
    if you are going to post anyway, might as well use your name, your talk gives you away every time.
  11. USC's Avatar

    Hmmmm...Seems like there are quite a few sock puppets ( around. Unfortunately (fortunately?), Greg deleted John's post before I saw it!!
  12. Strong supporter of immigration and immigrants in general's Avatar
    "Hey, the least I can do is make fun of them, and I don't apologize."

    You really raise the level of debate here. No wonder people don't take you serious. Nor do they take serious people who use the bigot or anti-immigrant card every chance they get.
  13. USC's Avatar

    Nice piece. A couple of links for all to read and consider:


    Lou Dobbs:

  14. John's Avatar
    Greg, Can we use the alternate term "Jackpot Baby"? Most coutries are doing away with this concept including India, New Zealand & United Kingdom. We should too.See wikipedia article:

  15. Greg Siskind's Avatar
    John - Sure, as long as you label you give it to your hero Michelle Malkin who at least one amusing site lists as a Jackpot Baby.

  16. Dream Act guy's Avatar

    I was wondering what you thought of the term "illegal" or the "illegals?"
  17. Greg Siskind's Avatar
    >>I was wondering what you thought of the term "illegal" or the "illegals?"
  18. A's Avatar
    By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
    Special to CNN
    Decrease font Decrease font
    Enlarge font Enlarge font

    Fresno, CALIFORNIA (CNN) -- We already knew we had broken borders. And when Congress chickened out on immigration reform and showed that it's not equipped to tackle anything more challenging than pork or pay raises, we knew we had a broken branch. Now it's clear that we have a broken dialogue.

    Ruben Navarrette Jr.: Illegal immigration is always someone else's fault. At least that's what we tell ourselves.

    We like to think of ourselves, and our communities, as innocent victims of sinister forces that are beyond our control. Concerned that there are too many illegal immigrants in the United States, that our culture is getting too spicy, and that the country is becoming too Hispanic, we blame Mexico or mega-corporations or what one commentator ominously labeled "socio-ethnic centric groups" such as the National Council of La Raza.

    You see, illegal immigration is always someone else's fault. At least that's what we tell ourselves. It's easier that way.

    And, when we do engage the topic, we get distracted by arguments over whether, for instance, a town such as Hazleton, Pennsylvania, has the right to dabble in do-it-yourself immigration enforcement or whether the Founding Fathers were on the right track in prohibiting that sort of thing by conceiving of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which says that a state or locality cannot pass laws that interfere with federal law.

    It seems that question has been answered now that U.S. District Judge James M. Munley of the central Pennsylvania district has struck down a poorly conceived ordinance dubbed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, which sought to punish landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and employers who hire them. More than 100 towns and communities have passed similar ordinances.

    Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta, who has ridden the issue to some degree of national notoriety, has vowed to appeal the decision. But Barletta is whistling by the graveyard. Higher courts are likely to see this issue pretty much as the district court did. It's what attorneys call black-and-white law.

    What we should be talking about instead is just how disingenuous these types of localities are being. Illegal immigration is a self-inflicted wound. And it's not just employers and landlords that benefit. It's also, yep, the same communities and towns that are doing all the complaining. There is only thing that lured illegal immigrants to Hazleton. It wasn't the scenery, the schools, or the local sports teams. It was jobs -- jobs willingly provided by individuals and businesses that, in turn, forked over tax dollars and filled town coffers. When businesses do well, the town does well. And when the town does well, the people who live there feel as if they're doing well.
    Don't Miss

    * U.S. workers will pick that lettuce -- for $1,000 a week
    * All-American forum failed to address Hispanic issues
    * Border security talk a bluff for immigration critics
    * Democrats lack clarity on immigration

    I've never been to Hazleton. But I imagine that the place is lovely and has its share of restaurants, hotels and construction firms. It probably also has plenty of working mothers who rely on maids and nannies and plenty of working dads who come home to nicely manicured lawns maintained by gardeners and landscapers, all courtesy of our broken borders. And for years, it's been this way, and no one said a thing about it. Because everyone prospered.

    Towns like Hazleton seem to think that they deserve some relief and some sympathy. But one thing they don't deserve is a free pass.

    Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the editorial board of The San Diego Union-Tribune and a nationally syndicated columnist with the Washington Post Writers Group. You can read his column here.
  19. USC's Avatar

    "John - Sure, as long as you label you give it to your hero Michelle Malkin who at least one amusing site lists as a Jackpot Baby."

    Thanks for that link. Till, yesterday I didn't even know who Malkin was. I wasn't missing out on much. Apparently, she is from the crowd that believes in "We made it, now let's pull up the draw bridge." Disgraceful!

    Also, I followed the link provided by John's wikipedia reference (near the bottom):

    "Anchor baby or jackpot baby are pejorative terms[1][2]..."

    So, I would respectfully suggest you apply the same criteria in deleting posts with "jackpot babies" as you would to "anchor babies". There is no reason people can't use "jus soli" if this topic is to be discussed. BTW, shame on India, England and others for discriminating against persons born in their countries!

    Dream Act Guy:

    I think amnesty is the only solution in solving the problem of 12 million undocumented immigrants. However, a substantial portion of the US problem is opposed to amnesty. Folks like Senator Sessiona are never going to go along with that but if we are to win the ones in the center there needs to be an acknowledgement that those here in undocumented status broke the law and would like to know make amends. "The undocumenteds" and "the illegals" can both be construed in a negative manner. The only neutral term is to refer to them as immigrants, however, then you are making no distinction between them and those here legally. My suspicion is that the GCs, F1s, B1s, L1s and H1s would object to that.
  20. The term
    "Anchor Baby" does not have a negative connotation towards children. If there is a negative there, it is directed towards parents who have children with the sole goal of avoiding immigration laws.

    What kind of a person would have a child to get around the law? That is not a family value I am aware of.

    I think we should stop using the term "anchor baby" because the word is misunderstood, but I don't think people using it have the intent of insulting children. If there is an insult to children, it is the use of them as pawns to avoid the law.

    The law should be changed so that children cannot be used as pawns.
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Put Free Immigration Law Headlines On Your Website

Immigration Daily: the news source for legal professionals. Free! Join 35000+ readers Enter your email address here: