This is a timely topic, and more a Political issue than social. In between life and conspiracy theories, I enjoy indulging in some mindless fun,
namely celebrity gossip and movie gossip. I was delighted when I disvovered that Spanish actors Javier Bardem and Penelope Cruz were expecting their
first child. Babies are always a joyful subject, and seeing what the kids of famous people look like and wear can be a fun.
In the last week of January there came reports that their lovely child was born.
In Los Angeles.
The birth was reported by Spanish newspaper El Pais and Hola! magazine on Wednesday. Reps for the couple have not confirmed the stories, but
another source told People magazine that the baby was born over the weekend in Los Angeles.
Another webpage called Fox Latino announced the upcoming joyous event in a different way, but it is nothing people of California don't hear about
each and every day.
You have to visit the page because Fox News Latino has sinced pulled the article. The link above shows it in picture form.
What, one wonders, is an “anchor baby?”
That’s the headline on Fox News Latino, a website that delivers English language news content of interest to Spanish speakers: “Penelope Cruz and
Javier Bardem Are Having an Anchor Baby.” Huh? It could be a news stunt–putting an adorable infant in the anchor chair in the hopes of boosting
ratings–or, it could be a screwup.
Fox News Latino reporter Alexandra Gratereaux’s story about Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem’s soon-to-be-born baby makes no mention of an anchor
deal–at Fox News or anywhere else
So why did this Pro Latin publication call their baby an anchor baby? I admit when I heard the term it got me thinking, and this is what I thought.
Damn my country is very nice. People do not have to be citizens at all, yet we will let you have your baby here, and as a parting gift for your
precious bundle of joy, we give your new baby a little thing called Citizenship too!
There are several issues to discuss here, one namely anchor babies. It has been in the news that some states are calling for the end of anchor baby
citizenship. Of course illegals are condemned for dropping babies on our shores for citizenship, but what about famous Hollywood movie stars? Is it OK
for them to do so, and escape the same vitriol and condemnation as the poor illegals get in heaping helpings? I have read nothing but good wishes for
our Oscar winning celebrities.
What are your thoughts on this timely and touchy subject? Is it only wrong when illegals do this? If non citizens are here legally , should their
child born on these foreign to them shores be given an automatic paper of citizenship? What if the non citizens own a home in our country, but are
still not citizens?
I shall give my personal opinion. I do not think a child born on our shores to parents who are both non citizens should be given citizenship, the
child should be declared a citizen of his parents country. If one parent is American, then of course the child should be entitled to claim either
country, but only one.
Where does one draw the line? Are there pros to snapping up all the fresh meat we can get our hands on? (from a tax and government pov, maybe there
is). What is the harm in this? I often wonder if I am not being racist or evil by feeling that citizenship should granted by parental lineage, namely
that a child's citizenship comes from either of his parents legal citizenship standing, not the country he happens to be born in. Then I think what
does it matter? These are kids, each one is a precious gift. (can you tell I love babies?) Children of today are our leaders of tomorrow after all.
Apparently, snake oil salesman turned non native Kentuckian Politician Rand Paul is very interested in this phenominon.
A pair of Republican senators - Louisiana's David Vitter and Kentucky's newly-elected Rand Paul - have introduced a resolution to change the
Constitution so that people born on American soil do not have automatic citizenship rights.
The resolution would amend the Constitution to mandate that citizenship is only granted to a person born in the United States if "at least one parent
is a legal citizen, legal immigrant, active member of the Armed Forces or a naturalized legal citizen," according to a Vitter release. The senators
say their bill would close a "loophole" in the Constitution
And lastly, in researching this topic, I learned that anchor baby is considered a derrogatroy term.
“Anchor baby” is widely acknowledged to be a pejorative term to describe the U.S.-born children of undocumented immigrants. Fox News’ Juan
Williams has called it “derisive” and “ugly,” and one Hispanic Republican group declared it to be “defamatory.” So why is a national news
anchor using it as if it were accurate?
On his 8 p.m. ET broadcast last night, CBS Radio News anchor Bill Whitney introduced a report this way: “They’re called anchor babies, children of
illegal immigrants who provide an anchor in the United States. In Arizona, there’s a move afoot to weigh those anchors.”
I know it is a crude term, but I did not realize it was becoming an anchor itself for special interest groups to cling onto like this.
So, there are many aspects up for discussion on this thread, what is your opinion on this timely topic?