Anchor baby
Template:Short description Template:For Template:Pp-pc1 Template:Immigration sidebar Anchor baby is a term—regarded by some as a pejorative<ref name="Chavez2013">Template:Cite book</ref><ref name="GallagherLippard2014">Template:Cite book</ref>—referring to a child born to non-citizen parents in a country that has birthright citizenship, which will therefore help the parents and other family members gain citizenship or legal residency<ref name="oxforddic">Template:Cite encyclopedia</ref> and/or avoid deportation in said country. In the U.S., the term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen under jus soli and the rights guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.<ref name="weekinreview">Template:Cite news</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref><ref name="statedeptfamily">Template:Cite web</ref> The term is also often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States.<ref name="doubletongue">Template:Cite web</ref> A similar term, "passport baby", has been used in Canada for children born through so-called "maternity" or "birth tourism".<ref>Template:Cite news</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
History and usage
A related term, anchor child, referring in this case to "very young immigrants who will later sponsor immigration for family members who are still abroad", was used in reference to Vietnamese boat people from about 1987.<ref name="doubletongue"/><ref name="LATM">Template:Cite news</ref><ref name="TS">Template:Cite news</ref><ref>Template:Citation</ref><ref name=WOTY>Template:Cite web</ref> In 2002 in the Irish High Court, Bill Shipsey used the term to refer to an Irish-born child whose family were his clients; in the 2003 Supreme Court judgment upholding the parents' deportation, Adrian Hardiman commented on the novelty of both the term and concomitant argument.<ref>Template:Cite web; Template:Cite web</ref> (In Ireland jus soli citizenship was abolished in 2004.)
"Anchor baby" appeared in print in 1996, but remained relatively obscure until 2006, when it found new prominence amid the increased focus on the immigration debate in the United States.<ref name="weekinreview"/><ref name="doubletongue"/><ref name=WOTY/><ref name=NYT>Template:Cite news</ref> The term is generally considered pejorative.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> Analysis of news usage, internet links, and search engine rankings indicate that Fox News and Newsmax were pivotal in popularizing the term in the mid and late 2000s.<ref>Template:Cite journal</ref> In 2011 the American Heritage Dictionary added an entry for the term in the dictionary's new edition, which did not indicate that the term was disparaging. Following a critical blog piece by Mary Giovagnoli, the director of the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigration research group in Washington, the dictionary updated its online definition to indicate that the term is "offensive", similar to its entries on ethnic slurs.<ref name=NYT/><ref>Template:Cite news</ref> Template:As of, the definition reads:
n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child's birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother's or other relatives' chances of securing eventual citizenship.
The decision to revise the definition led to some criticism from immigration opponents, such as the Center for Immigration Studies and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
In 2012, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff, in a meeting designed to promote the 2010 Utah Compact declaration as a model for a federal government approach to immigration, said that "The use of the word 'anchor baby' when we're talking about a child of God is offensive."<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
Several journalists and public figures in the United States have been criticized for using the term anchor baby.<ref name="chigagotribune1">Template:Cite news</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref> In Australia in 2019, then-Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton used "anchor babies" to label the two Australian-born children of the Murugappan asylum seeker family,<ref>Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite web</ref> which opposition politician Kristina Keneally said was an attempt to import American debates that were not relevant to Australia.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
Maternity tourism industry
Template:Main Template:As of, Los Angeles is considered the center of the maternity tourism industry, which caters mostly to wealthy Asian women;<ref>Template:Cite webTemplate:Dead link</ref> authorities in the city there closed 14 maternity tourism "hotels" in 2013.<ref name=Jordan/> The industry is difficult to close down since it is not illegal for a pregnant woman to travel to the U.S.<ref name=Jordan/>
On March 3, 2015 federal agents in Los Angeles conducted a series of raids on three "multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses" expected to produce the "biggest federal criminal case ever against the booming 'anchor baby' industry", according to The Wall Street Journal.<ref name=Jordan>Template:Cite news</ref><ref name=Kim>Template:Cite news</ref>
Ireland's abolition of unconditional birthright citizenship
In 2005, Ireland amended its constitution to become the last country in Europe to abolish unconditional jus soli citizenship, as a direct result of concerns over birth tourism. A headline case was Chen v Home Secretary, whereby a Chinese temporary migrant living in mainland United Kingdom travelled to Belfast, Northern Ireland to give birth to her daughter for the purpose of obtaining Irish citizenship for her daughter (Ireland's jus soli law extends to all parts of the island of Ireland, including Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK). The daughter's Irish citizenship was then used by her parents to obtain permanent residence in the UK as the parents of a dependent EU citizen.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>
Immigration status (United States)
The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Template:Ussc,Template:Efn that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the United States, provided that their parents are foreign citizens, have permanent domicile status in the United States, and are engaging in business in the United States except performing in a diplomatic or official capacity of a foreign power.<ref name="Factcheck">Template:Cite web</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref><ref name="politifact" /><ref name="politifact2">Template:Cite web</ref><ref name="Ho">Template:Cite journal</ref><ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite journal</ref>
Most constitutional scholars agree that the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides birthright citizenship even to those born in the United States to illegal immigrants.<ref name="Factcheck" /><ref>Template:Cite book</ref><ref>Template:Cite news</ref><ref name="CarrollBirthright">Template:Cite web</ref><ref name="posttrumpjudge">Template:Cite news</ref> Edward Erler, writing for the Claremont Institute in 2007, said that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, it provides no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants. He goes on to argue that if governmental permission for parental entry is a necessary requirement for bestowal of birthright citizenship, then children of undocumented immigrants must surely be excluded from citizenship.<ref>Erler et al., The Founders on Citizenship and Immigration: Principles and Challenges in America, Claremont Institute Series on Statesmanship and Political Philosophy, p. Template:Cite book. "Even if the logic is that Wong Kim Ark became a citizen by birth with the permission of the United States when it admitted his parents to the country, no such permission has been given to those who enter illegally. If no one can become a citizen without the permission of the United States, then children of illegal aliens must surely be excluded from acquiring citizenship."</ref>
However, in Plyler v. Doe, Template:Ussc,Template:Efn a case involving educational entitlements for children in the United States unlawfully, Justice Brennan, writing for a five-to-four majority, held that such persons were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and thus protected by its laws. In a footnote, he observed, "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful."<ref name="Factcheck"/><ref name="Ho"/><ref name="WaPoBirthright">Template:Cite news</ref> In 2006 judge James Chiun-Yue Ho, who President Donald Trump would later appoint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, wrote in a law review article that with the Plyler decision "any doubt was put to rest" whether the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision applied to illegal aliens because "all nine justices agreed that the Equal Protection Clause protects legal and illegal aliens alike. And all nine reached that conclusion precisely because illegal aliens are 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the U.S., no less than legal aliens and U.S. citizens."<ref name="Ho"/><ref name="posttrumpjudge"/>
In 2010, statistics showed that a significant, and rising, number of undocumented immigrants were having children in the United States, but there is mixed evidence that acquiring citizenship for the parents was their goal.<ref name=politifact/> According to PolitiFact, the immigration benefits of having a child born in the United States are limited. Citizen children cannot sponsor parents for entry into the country until they are 21 years of age, and if the parent had ever been in the country illegally, they would have to show they had left and not returned for at least ten years; however, pregnant and nursing mothers could receive food vouchers through the federal WIC (Women, Infants and Children) program and enroll the children in Medicaid.<ref name="politifact">Template:Cite web</ref>
Parents of citizen children who have been in the country for ten years or more can also apply for relief from deportation, though only 4,000 persons a year can receive relief status; as such, according to PolitiFact, having a child in order to gain citizenship for the parents is "an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process."<ref name=politifact/> Approximately 88,000 legal-resident parents of US citizen children were deported in the 2000s, most for minor criminal convictions.<ref>Template:Cite news</ref>
Incidence
Some critics of illegal immigration claim the United States' "birthright citizenship" is an incentive for illegal immigration, and that immigrants come to the country to give birth specifically so that their child will be an American citizen. The majority of children of illegal immigrants in the United States are citizens, and the number has risen. According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, an estimated 73% of children of illegal immigrants were citizens in 2008, up from 63% in 2003. A total of 3.8 million illegal immigrants had at least one child who is an American citizen. In investigating a claim by U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, PolitiFact found mixed evidence to support the idea that citizenship was the motivating factor.<ref name=politifact/> PolitiFact concludes that "[t]he data suggests that the motivator for illegal immigrants is the search for work and a better economic standing over the long term, not quickie citizenship for U.S.-born babies."<ref name=politifact/>
There has been a growing trend, especially amongst Asian and African visitors from Hong Kong, China, South Korea, Taiwan and Nigeria to the United States,<ref>Template:Cite web. Los Angeles Times</ref><ref>Template:Cite web. All Africa</ref> to make use of "Birth Hotels" to secure US citizenship for their child and leave open the possibility of future immigration by the parents to the United States.<ref>Template:Cite web January 04, 2013</ref><ref>Template:Cite web December 2, 2012</ref> Pregnant women typically spend around $20,000 to stay in the facilities during their final months of pregnancy and an additional month to recuperate and await their new baby's U.S. passport.<ref>Template:Cite web January 03, 2013</ref> In some cases, the birth of a Canadian<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> or American<ref>Template:Cite web</ref> child to mainland Chinese parents is a means to circumvent the one-child policy in China;<ref>Template:Cite magazine</ref> Hong Kong<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> and the Northern Mariana Islands<ref>Template:Cite news</ref> were also popular destinations before more restrictive local regulation impeded traffic. Some prospective mothers misrepresent their intentions of coming to the United States, a violation of U.S. immigration law and as of January 24, 2020 it became U.S. consular policy to deny B visa applications from applicants whom the consular officer has reason to believe are traveling for the primary purpose of giving birth in the United States to obtain U.S. citizenship for their child.<ref>Template:Cite web</ref>