The New New Republic: Anchor Babies Are A Myth...And The Term is Offensive

link

   I sure do miss the old New Republic...

   Look, you're going to have to choose one. Either there aren't any, or the term is "offensive"*...but you can't have it both ways. I wonder whether we should be "offended" by the use of the term "skin job" to refer to replicants in Blade Runner. I mean, it's clearly supposed to be a derogatory term for androi...uh...differently...uh...human...uh...humans...  So...

   'Anchor baby' is a perfectly neutral, clear, vividly descriptive term. If someone comes to the U.S. in order to have a baby that will thereby be a U.S. citizen, and they do so for the purpose of establishing a toehold in the country, then the baby is an anchor baby. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there is no such thing... I don't have a rooting interest. I just want to know whether it does or doesn't happen to a significant extent. But (a) the term is not "offensive", and (b) it's doubly not offensive if there aren't any of them.

   Really, you can't make up stuff this stupid. 

* So...is the paleo-PC term "offensive" going to make a comeback? Back in the late '80's and early '90's this was the PCs favorite word. Their mantra was "That's offensive." It was sprinkled through their speech almost like some kind of verbal tic. I thought they'd thrown it over for the more generic mantra "that's problematic." (Which really is too bad...'offensive' is a word I can get along without...but 'problemantic' is a handy word when not abused, and I'll hate to have to give it up...)