In my opinion Phil, it would depend upon the politics of the individual. children of illegals that subscribe to the open borders/Aztlan crowd beliefs or openly declare allegiances to other countries might very well deserve a label. On the other hand, there could be a few examples where they reject that philosophy entirely, and want to be, or exhibit an America first attitude. But we hardly hear from, or see the latter, do we? Is that because there are none, or another example of our agenda driven mainstream media?

So what would be an appropriate nickname for those who don't want to be Americans first? Maybe there is one but I can't just think of what it would be.

If anchor babies want to exhibit an America first attitude, then should we accept their birthright citizenship? I don't think so. Anchor babies know who they are and many of them are grown up already and have falsely assumed the role of US citizens. So what if they exhibit an "America first" attitude? It contradicts the corrupted institution that they have assumed membership in.

If anchor babies want to honestly embrace US citizenship and confront the corrupted system that has made them US citizens -- as any US citizen should -- then they should reject their US citizenship and reintroduce themselves as struggling to become naturalized. They should attempt to become US citizens as if they were foreign nationals.

We were talking about the labels we give them, not the actual legalization of them

The term "anchor baby" is an overused and over broad in its usual application.

My Elena is firstborn in America from Mexican born parents, there would be people over eager to incorrectly apply the term "anchor baby" to her.

However, it is her son who is the Aztlanista in the family, and he was educated into it at school. He didn't learn to be a racist from any of his older relatives.

You have to place credit where credit is due.

If you are not a US citizen, then your children born in the US are not US citizens. This is by law, of course, not practice. This is what we should be struggling against. If you are not a citizen and your children born in the US claim US citizenship, then they are "anchor babies".

We have to disagree.

An "anchor baby" is a child who's purpose is to legitimize illegality.

You might be making judgments within a vacuum of information concerning other people who were not of that "persuasion" and erroneously calling into question their Americanism.

It's not a "brown and white" slate, there are shades of gray everywhere.

By the way, refer to me which law and the background discussion of that law of which you speak which denies citizenship to American born children of non citizens.

Verifiable information only. US code, Congressional record, anything else which may legitimately apply. No "everyone has one" opinion.

(deleted)

Yes, Tax Burden.

My Elena was a child from an earlier migration. There was no such thing as welfare, and while her father worked for a multi-century pioneer in exploitation of south of the border labor, they did such things as scour the old time burn dumps for cast off furniture, housewares, and toys that white people tossed for use in their household. They were friggin' poor.

They ate meat once a month.

No government entitlements.

Lots of rice and beans, the depression in the barrio didn't end in 1941 with WWII and older relatives who were a part of that war, it went through into the 1960's.

And, while it didn't apply to everyone from the barrio south of the tracks, there was a general pre 1960 requirement to be back before dark.

And get this, no hard feelings, that's just the way things were back then, doesn't apply now.

So, when her older brother was sick and in the hospital not too long ago, I made a joke about how he would soon be out and playing soccer, he said that he played football, baseball, and basketball in high school, that soccer was something the Mexicans brought when they came - even though his parents were both Mexican born.

Be careful of who and how people with south of the border ancestry are talked about, because it may work against the quest for enforcement of American immigration laws.

For what it's worth.