“Anchor Babies” Are the Latest Pawns in the GOP’s Crusade to Sound Tough


Anchor babies are back! And back with a vengeance. Yesterday, Jeb Bush unveiled Jeb 2.0, a louder, tougher, more outraged version of himself. Overall, it was a pretty woeful performance—he sounded a lot like a shy teenager practicing toughness in front of a mirror—but along the way he suggested that we needed better enforcement at the border in order to reduce the epidemic of anchor babies. A reporter asked why he used a term that’s considered offensive, and Bush looked like a kid who’s just gotten a toy at Christmas, “Do you have a better term? You give me a better term and I’ll use it,” he shot back. Tough! Trumpish!

Ed Kilgore says the worst part of all this is that Republican candidates don’t just use the term, but defend it with “snarling pride.” Well sure. They all want to be Donald Trump. But there’s nothing surprising about this. Republicans ostentatiously use the term “illegals” constantly as a signal that they’re not just conservatives, but conservatives who don’t take any guff from anyone—and certainly not from the PC police.

So no surprises here. But I’m curious about something. Last night I read a longish piece at TNR by Gwyneth Kelly titled “Why ‘Anchor Baby’ Is Offensive.” I was actually sort of curious about that, so I read through it. But all the article did was provide a bit of history about the term and quote a bunch of people saying it was disgusting and dehumanizing. There was no explanation of why it’s offensive.

Don’t everyone pile on me at once. If you don’t ask, you can’t learn, right? So I guess my question is this. Is “anchor baby” offensive because:

  • It riles up xenophobia over something that doesn’t actually happen very much.
    or
  • There’s something about the term itself that’s obnoxious.

I’m probably going to regret asking this. But I am curious. It’s not obvious from first principles what the problem is here.

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.