Skip to Content

IPC In The News

Letter to the editor: by Mary Giovagnoli

The POLITICO article “Obama: We Can’t Wait on Immigration” (Jan. 6) suggests that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services announcement of streamlined processing for certain immigration waivers is part of a “war on GOP members of Congress.”

This is an unfortunate characterization of a long-overdue regulatory change. It is designed to correct a decade-long problem that has unnecessarily separated families and caused undue hardship to thousands of U.S. citizens and their loved ones.

The proposed rule would permit “in-country processing” of family unity waivers. This changes regulations that now require applicants to leave the country before they can apply for a waiver.

The current system has become increasingly burdensome, because of processing backlogs, uncertainty of outcomes and violence in key U.S. consulates, such as the one in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. It creates unnecessary hardship for applicants who are eligible to receive a legal status but must first obtain a family unity waiver.

This waiver can now only be obtained abroad. But leaving the U.S. may trigger a bar of three years to 10 years if the applicant has been unlawfully present.

Many applicants fear that they might be permanently separated from their families and so never apply to become lawful permanent residents. Though applicants would still have to depart the U.S., under the new proposal they would do so knowing that their waiver had been provisionally approved — reducing waiting time and hardship for all.

All members of Congress — Republican or Democrat — have likely seen the compelling cases raised by the three year-to-10 year bar problem. Resolving it is not a partisan issue. It is instead an example of immigration service acting responsibly to address a problem of its own regulatory making.

Mary Giovagnoli

Director

Immigration Policy Center

Politico | 01/06/12
American Immigration Council Sues U.S. Immigration Agencies Over Asylum “Clock”

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Last week, the American Immigration Council’s Legal Action Center filed a nationwide class action lawsuit against U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the Executive Office for Immigration Review in federal court in Seattle. The lawsuit alleges widespread problems with the asylum “clock”—the system that the government uses to determine when immigrants with pending asylum applications become eligible to obtain work authorization in the United States. The class certification motion describes the nationwide impact of these policies.

The complaint, co-filed with the Northwest Immigrants Rights Project, Gibbs Houston Pauw, and the Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, was submitted on behalf of untold numbers of asylum applicants wrongfully denied work authorization due to unlawful agency policies and practices. The named plaintiffs include asylum seekers who have pursued their cases for years without work authorization—including a man from China who initially filed his asylum application in 2003.

With limited exceptions, federal law requires USCIS to grant work authorization to any person with an asylum application pending for 180 days. In calculating this period, however, USCIS relies on determinations made by immigration judges who work for EOIR. As a result, arbitrary EOIR policies on when the “clock” should start and stop—combined with growing backlogs in U.S. immigration courts—have unlawfully prevented asylum seekers from working. The suit alleges these policies violate the Constitution, federal statutes, and governing regulations.

“This lawsuit targets a problem that has plagued asylum applicants for far too long,” said Benjamin Johnson, Executive Director of the American Immigration Council. “Asylum seekers who have fled persecution in their native countries and have made good faith efforts to comply with the asylum process should not be arbitrarily deprived of the ability to earn a living while their applications are pending. This lawsuit challenges the longstanding disregard for basic due process protections for this vulnerable population.”

New American Media | 12/20/11
Conn. mayor seeks to let illegal immigrants vote

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (AP) — Already known as a refuge for people from other lands, New Haven is tightening its embrace of newcomers as its mayor seeks to extend voting rights to illegal immigrants and other noncitizens, a policy challenge that comes shortly after attacks on "sanctuary cities" by Republican presidential candidates.

The Democratic mayor, John DeStefano, helped illegal immigrants come out of the shadows four years ago when he launched a first-of-its-kind program to give them city resident cards. Despite crackdowns elsewhere, he has forged ahead with proposals that he says are designed to find common ground in a diverse city.

"We're a place of differences," he said. "We're a place that sees a strength and places a value on welcoming folks from all over."

Dozens of American cities including New York, San Francisco and Cambridge, Mass., take a hands-off approach to pursuing illegal immigrants. While advocates say they are rightly distancing themselves from a broken immigration system, critics accuse them of flouting federal law as "sanctuary cities" — a label not all of them accept.

Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich has vowed to cut off federal funding for such cities. One of his rivals, Texas Gov. Rick Perry, pushed a bill this year that would have prohibited cities from acting as "sanctuaries" for illegal immigrants and allowed local law enforcement to become more involved in immigration enforcement. Mitt Romney has said he opposed sanctuary cities as Massachusetts governor and, as president, he would "find the right approach" to ending them if legally possible.

President Barack Obama has resisted calls from some Republicans to crack down on sanctuary cities. As a Democratic candidate in 2007, he said the U.S. government should address the issue by providing a rational immigration system, not by withdrawing funds from cities that shelter noncitizens.

More than 70 cities and states nationwide bar police from asking community residents who have not been arrested to prove their legal status, according to the Immigration Policy Center, a nonpartisan research organization. For many, including New Haven, the goal is to make immigrants comfortable reaching out to police for help.

Those policies, however, do not prevent state or local police from reporting foreign-born criminals to the Department of Homeland Security.

New Haven, the home of Yale University, is a port city of 125,000 residents with a history of embracing liberal politics and social change. It was a hotbed for civil rights protests in the 1960s and, more than a century earlier, the city where African captives from the slave ship Amistad were jailed before winning their freedom in the 1840s.

The city has an estimated 10,000 to 12,000 illegal immigrants, resettles some 200 refugees annually and hosts roughly 2,000 noncitizens associated with Yale.

DeStefano long ago prohibited police from asking people about their immigration status. In addition to his pledge to seek legislative action allowing illegal immigrants to vote — a proposal that many, including Democratic Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, see as unrealistic — the 10-term mayor last week also spoke out against a federal immigration enforcement program, Secure Communities, which uses fingerprints collected in local jails to identify illegal immigrants who have been arrested.

DeStefano brushed off the Republican attacks as irrelevant to his city and suggested critics are using immigrants as scapegoats amid the weak economy.

"These are hard times right now in America," he said. "Part of human nature is when you're angry to look for someone else to blame for your problems. I understand that."

New Haven's immigrant-friendly reputation sets it apart from some other Connecticut communities, including next-door neighbor East Haven, where a U.S. Justice Department investigation found Monday that police had singled out Latinos for harassment and where a criminal investigation by the FBI could lead to indictments of individual officers.

With other states including Arizona, Alabama and South Carolina passing laws aimed at stopping illegal immigration, some newcomers to New Haven are grateful to not be under the same scrutiny.

"Here the police give people a break. If you're caught driving drunk or without a license, you'll still go to court. But they don't call immigration," said Nicolas Gutierrez, a 63-year-old deli worker from Mexico who's a permanent U.S. resident.

Bakery owner Francisco Barranco, however, said some of his customers are concerned that New Haven will receive more attention from federal immigration agents who could see DeStefano's actions as provocation, as many believe they have in the past.

In 2007, the day after New Haven began handing out resident cards to give noncitizens access to community services, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents swept through the city and detained 31 immigrants. Critics, including DeStefano, contend the raid was retaliation for the city's adoption of the ID program — a charge the agency has steadfastly denied.

DeStefano says that noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, already work and pay taxes in the city and that allowing them to vote in municipal elections would encourage them to participate more in the community. His office says that two dozen other states have seen similar legislation and that many cities and towns allow for voting in local elections, but the secretary of the state said it would require an amendment to the state constitution for it to fly in Connecticut.

Connecticut Republican Party Chairman Jerry Labriola has dismissed the proposal as a "publicity stunt," saying it would reward illegal immigration.

The mayor has stronger backing on his stand against the new ICE initiative, Secure Communities, which he says would destroy the trust the city has built up with its illegal immigrants.

Hartford officials have joined him in calling on local officials not to honor detainer requests for immigrants who could be subject to deportation after being picked up for minor violations. And the governor's liaison on criminal justice policy, Mike Lawlor, said the administration shares concerns that illegal immigrants of all stripes will be targeted, and not just serious offenders.

An ICE spokesman, Harold Ort, said the program focuses on criminal offenders. He also noted that once a local law enforcement agency submits fingerprint data to any branch of the federal government, such as the FBI, the state does not have to sign off on that data being shared with other agencies.

DeStefano, for his part, seemed amused by the attention given to his latest proposals.

"When we did the resident card, everybody thought the world was going to explode. The world didn't explode," he said. "We were a stronger place for it."

Associated Press | 12/20/11
Let illegals, other noncitizens vote, New Haven mayor says

NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Already known as a refuge for people from other lands, New Haven and its mayor are seeking to extend voting rights to illegal immigrants and other noncitizens.

Mayor John DeStefano, a Democrat, introduced four years ago a first-of-its-kind program to give noncitizens, legal or not, city resident cards. Despite crackdowns elsewhere, he has forged ahead with proposals that he says encourage differences.

“We’re a place of differences,” he said. “We’re a place that sees a strength and places a value on welcoming folks from all over.”

Dozens of American cities including New York, San Francisco and Cambridge, Mass., take a hands-off approach to pursuing illegal immigrants. While advocates say they are distancing themselves from a broken immigration system, critics accuse them of flouting federal law as “sanctuary cities.”

Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich has vowed to cut off federal funding for such cities. Texas Gov. Rick Perry pushed a bill this year that would have prohibited cities from acting as “sanctuaries” for illegal immigrants and get local law enforcement more involved in immigration enforcement. Mitt Romney has said he opposed sanctuary cities as Massachusetts governor and, as president, he would “find the right approach” to ending them if legally possible.

President Obama has resisted calls from some Republicans to crack down on sanctuary cities. As a Democratic candidate in 2007, he said the U.S. government should address the issue by providing a rational immigration system, not by withdrawing funds from such cities.

More than 70 cities and states nationwide bar police from asking community residents who have not been arrested to prove their legal status, according to the Immigration Policy Center. For many, including New Haven, the goal is to make immigrants comfortable reaching out to police for help.

Those policies, however, do not prevent state or local police from reporting foreign-born criminals to the Department of Homeland Security.

New Haven, the home of Yale University, is a port city of 125,000 residents with a history of embracing liberal politics. The city has an estimated 10,000 to 12,000 illegal immigrants, resettles some 200 refugees annually and hosts roughly 2,000 noncitizens associated with Yale.

Mr. DeStefano long ago prohibited police from asking people about their immigration status. In addition to his pledge to seek legislative action allowing illegal immigrants to vote — a proposal that many, including Democratic Gov. Dan Malloy, see as unrealistic — the 10-term mayor last week also spoke out against a federal immigration-enforcement program, Secure Communities, which uses fingerprints collected in local jails to identify illegal immigrants.

Mr. DeStefano brushed off the Republican attacks as irrelevant to his city and suggested critics are using immigrants as scapegoats amid the weak economy.

“These are hard times right now in America,” he said. “Part of human nature is, when you’re angry to look for someone else to blame for your problems. I understand that.”

Some newcomers to New Haven are grateful to not be under scrutiny.

“Here the police give people a break. If you’re caught driving drunk or without a license, you’ll still go to court. But they don’t call immigration,” said Nicolas Gutierrez, a 63-year-old deli worker from Mexico who’s a permanent U.S. resident.

Washington Times | 12/20/11
Dictionary redefines ‘anchor baby’ as slur

What does a tenure “anchor baby” mean? If we were to demeanour it up
in a American Heritage Dictionary, we would find a new
definition given final week.

The tenure was among some 10,000 new difference and phrases in the
fifth book of a dictionary, published in November. It was
defined as: “A child innate to a noncitizen mom in a nation that
grants involuntary citizenship to children innate on a soil,
especially such a child innate to relatives seeking to secure eventual
citizenship for themselves and mostly other members of their
family.”

But when Steve Kleinedler, a executive editor of the
dictionary, review that clarification during a radio talk last
month, it uneasy Mary Giovagnoli, a executive of a Immigration
Policy Center, a pro-immigration investigate organisation in Washington.

The once-obscure tenure has been used frequently in a recent
debate over either to change a Constitution to repudiate automatic
U.S. citizenship to children innate in this nation to illegal
immigrant parents.

Last Friday morning, Giovagnoli posted an indignant object on the
center’s blog, observant a compendium “masks a unwholesome and
derogatory inlet of a term, a tenure that demeans both primogenitor and
child.”

On Monday, a compendium posted a new definition. It started
with “offensive,” in italics: “Used as a adverse tenure for a
child innate to a noncitizen mom in a nation that grants
automatic citizenship to children innate on a soil, generally when
the child’s hearth is suspicion to have been selected in sequence to
improve a mother’s or other relatives’ chances of securing
eventual citizenship.”

Kleinedler said, “The tenure is now treated likewise to how the
dictionary treats a far-reaching operation of slurs.”

Washington Investment | 12/11/11
Immigration showdowns: Federal government challenging state laws in court

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA: In October, the U.S. Department of Justice challenged South Carolina's immigration law in federal court, charging that parts of the law are "unconstitutional and interfere with the federal government's authority to set and enforce immigration policy."

In April, the Justice Department succeeded in blocking some provisions of the newly enacted Arizona immigration law, and in October, some of Alabama's controversial provisions were temporarily blocked. Last month, the federal government sued Utah.

"A patchwork of immigration laws is not the answer and will only create further problems in our immigration system," Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement Nov. 22. "The federal government is the chief enforcer of immigration laws, and while we appreciate cooperation from states, which remains important, it is clearly unconstitutional for a state to set its own immigration policy."

South Carolina officials, including Gov. Nikki Haley, echoing the concerns of leaders in other states, say that local authorities cannot wait any more for the federal government to institute comprehensive immigration reform and must act now to secure borders and protect citizens and legal residents.

"If the Feds were doing their job, we wouldn't have had to address illegal immigration reform at the state level," Haley spokesman Rob Godfrey said recently.

The Obama administration has ramped up deportation actions.

About 1.1 million illegal immigrants have been deported since the beginning of 2009, and the Department of Homeland Security is dealing with a backlog of about 300,000 cases. By comparison, a total of 1.57 million were deported during President George W. Bush's two terms.

In Arizona, some police officers have complained that the 2010 immigration law is unfair and unrealistic. "It drives a wedge between us and the community, where we have to get our information," Roberto Villasenor, Tucson's chief of police, told National Public Radio last year.

The law was drafted with input from the private prison industry, NPR reported last October.

In Alabama, farmers have spoken of serious economic impacts, including a shortage of workers and whole crops rotting in the fields.

The state could see its economy contract by tens of millions of dollars and lose more than $130 million in tax revenue if its new laws effectively remove undocumented immigrants from the state, according to a report released last month by the University of Alabama's Center for Business and Economic Research and calculations published by the American Immigration Council's Immigration Policy Center.

In South Carolina, tax revenues (property, income and sales) from unauthorized immigrants amounted to about $43.7 million in 2010, according to the Immigration Policy Center.

Nationally, the number of illegal immigrants appears to have declined since the beginning of the 2008 recession, from about 12 million to 11 million, with migration flows slowing, according to government estimates.

The Southeast has seen an influx of illegal immigrants in recent years, most of whom have been lured by agriculture and construction jobs, studies have shown.

Finding a reliable, up-to-date figure for the size of South Carolina's undocumented population is difficult; the 2004 U.S. Census estimated there were 36,000 in the state.

Post and Courier | 12/11/11
Revised Definition of 'Anchor Baby' Part of Leftist Agenda, Critics Say

A decision by the American Heritage Dictionary to revise its definition of "anchor baby" -- labeling it an offensive and disparaging term -- is an attempt to manipulate the "linguistic landscape" and push a leftist agenda, some opponents of illegal immigration say.

"Anchor baby" was among roughly 10,000 words -- including "hoodie" and "babydaddy" -- added to the dictionary's fifth edition last month. The hot-button term, a noun, was initially defined as: "A child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family."

That definition caught the attention of Mary Giovagnoli, director of the Washington-based Immigration Policy Center, who heard American Heritage Dictionary executive editor Steve Kleinedler read it during a radio interview last month. Giovagnoli blasted the definition on the organization's blog last Friday, saying it masked the "poisonous and derogatory" nature of the term.

By Monday, the term had been changed. It is now defined as such: "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 revision is now a "well-crafted" definition of how the term is used, Giovagnoli said.

But not everyone agrees.

"That's a political statement and it's not even accurate," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies. "[An anchor baby] is a child born to an illegal immigrant."

Krikorian said the revised definition makes a political statement and is much more than neutral, "just the facts" reference material.

"It's a sign of real provincialism," he said. "I understand why people don't like the term, but I know lots of people who use it in a non-disparaging fashion. There really isn't a shorthand way of describing people like this, and there does need to be because it an important source of political debate: Should the children born to illegal immigrants get automatic citizenship?"

Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based organization that seeks to end illegal immigration, said the revised definition panders to a small but vocal group of critics who are "manipulating the political, cultural and now linguistic landscape" of the United States.

"Publishing word definitions to fit politically correct molds surrenders the language to drive an agenda," Dane told FoxNews.com. "This dictionary becomes a textbook for the open borders lobby."

Asked if the term has a place in the dictionary, Dane replied: "Yes, it's a descriptive term, but what's offensive about 'anchor baby' isn't the term, but the practice of having a baby on our soil to game the system."

Giovagnoli, for her part, is satisfied with the change.

"I have no idea what their political leanings are, but our conversations were about the precision of language," she said. "They were very scholarly and rigorous in their response to me in their attempts to define how the word is used and interpreted.

“If anything, they realized that the issue started to generate criticism that this really was a term that was a slur, and that they made a mistake."

In a statement to FoxNews.com, Kleinedler said the original definition "lacked standard terminology" to indicate its offensiveness.

"This error has been rectified both in the definition and by the use of the label “offensive,” so the term is now treated similarly to how the dictionary treats a wide range of slurs," Kleinedler's statement read. "The editorial staff stands behind the revision."

By comparison, the term "anchor baby" is not found in the latest online dictionary edition by Merriam-Webster. But while it is just one word among 10,000 new terms, William Gheen, president of the Americans for Legal Immigration, said the revision of "anchor baby" is no small matter.

"The future of the United States is a place where you cannot speak your mind freely or engage in any terms or comments deemed inappropriate by the thought police," Gheen said. "What's really offensive is how these pro-illegal immigrant groups are telling people how they can talk."

Fox News | 12/08/11
Anchor Baby: A Term Redefined as a Slur

What does the term “anchor baby” mean? If you were to look it up in the American Heritage Dictionary, you would find a new definition since last week.

The term was among some 10,000 new words and phrases in the fifth edition of the dictionary, published in November. It was defined as: “A child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family.”

But when Steve Kleinedler, the executive editor of the dictionary, read that definition during a radio interview last month, it troubled Mary Giovagnoli, the director of the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigration research group in Washington.

The once-obscure term has been used frequently in the recent debate over whether to change the Constitution to deny automatic American citizenship to children born in this country to illegal immigrant parents.

Last Friday morning, Ms. Giovagnoli posted an angry item on the center’s blog, saying the dictionary “masks the poisonous and derogatory nature of the term, a term which demeans both parent and child.” Her item soared into the blogosphere. By Friday afternoon, Mr. Kleinedler had called Ms. Giovagnoli.

His editors huddled over the weekend, and on Monday a new definition of “anchor baby” was posted on the dictionary’s Web site. It started with “offensive,” in italics: “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.”

In a statement on Thursday, Mr. Kleinedler said the dictionary had rectified an error. “The term is now treated similarly to how the dictionary treats a wide range of slurs,” he said.

New York Times | 12/08/11
Dictionary now calls 'anchor baby' offensive term

The first new edition of the American Heritage Dictionary in 10 years contained 10,000 new entries -- and one of them in particular caused a flurry of protest among immigrant and Latino advocates.

The fifth edition of the dictionary defined the term "anchor baby" as "A child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family."

The original definition did not include any indication that the phrase is offensive, as it does for other words.

Immigration Impact, a group that that advocates for the rights of immigrants, first covered the word's inclusion on its blog on Dec. 2 and pressed for a change that would reflect the "poisonous and derogatory nature of the term."

After reading the post, the executive editor of the dictionary, Steve Kleinedler, agreed that the definition needed to change.

The current wording was added to the online dictionary on Monday. It flags the word as "offensive" and defines "anchor baby" as being "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."

Kleinedler told Colorlines, a blog that reports on issues of race, ethnicity and social justice, that changing the word was more about accuracy than outrage.

"Personally, this was not a reaction that we have to fix it because people are angry," Kleinedler told Colorlines. "We fixed it because we were wrong. And I, as the executive editor, acknowledge the fact that this was an error and I take responsibility for that."

This isn't the first time that a dictionary definition has caused controversy. In 2003, the Merriam-Webster Dictionary added a second meaning for the word "marriage" that included same-sex couples "in a relationship like that of traditional marriage," which offended those who believed the word should only be defined as describing a relationship between a man and a woman. The dictionary did not change the definition.

But in 1998, Merriam-Webster altered its definition of the word "n-----" after it was the focus of a letter writing campaign. The definition shifted from "a black person ... usually taken to be offensive" to one that emphasized the offensive nature of the term.

CNN | 12/08/11
American Heritage Editor on ‘Anchor Baby’ Definition: ‘We Were Wrong’

Recently, controversy erupted over the American Heritage dictionary’s definition of “anchor baby” as a neutral term. Jorge Rivas gave us an overview earlier this week. The act prompted immigrant rights advocates to reach out for institutional change. Here’s how the dictionary’s new edition originally defined “anchor baby:”

“Anchor Baby, n. A child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially such a child born to parents seeking to secure eventual citizenship for themselves and often other members of their family.”

Mary Giovagnoli, the Director of the Immigration Policy Center pushed back on the term’s definition, acknowledging that it’s politically loaded language and not neutral. She’s right. The term is racially charged and hurtful, much like the term “illegal immigrant,” which Giovagnoli ironically did use in her piece. It’s no surprise that dehumanizing and criminalizing people by describing them as “illegal immigrants” has paved the way for “anchor baby,” which suggests that supposedly “illicit” people who have families and settle down are conniving and dangerous. 

Communications expert Anat Shenker-Osorio reminded a group of us that historically, immigrants have been dehumanized through water imagery. According to this logic, there are threatening “waves of immigrants” who are “flooding” the country. Now, it’s “anchor babies” who have planted themselves onto American soil. Victor Goode wrote for Colorlines.com last year about the fight over birthright citizenship, and we covered how coded language is central to that racially charged debate.

I followed up with Steve Kleinedler, Executive Editor of the American Heritage Dictionary, who at the time of our conversation, was in the process of changing the “anchor baby” definition in consultation with the people at Immigration Impact. The new definition reflects push back from advocates:

”Anchor baby: 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.”

Here’s more of what Kleinedler had to tell us.

A lot of people would agree that the objective thing to do would be to present the term as it is. How do you think the term came to feel objective?

If you’re referring to my original NPR quote, what I was trying to say and what I said badly — honestly, at the time I thought the term was marked “offensive” — I was referring to the language used in the definition itself. When we say things are “derogatory” or “offensive,” we do it via this labeling system. The issue of it being offensive is something that would fall to the label, as opposed to being an integral part of the definition.

It’s well documented by journalists and people labeled with the term that the phrase “anchor baby” has been pushed out by anti-immigrant actors to pass anti-immigrant, anti-birthright legislation. This is central to that language. Will those facts be in the new definition or would you simply do away with it?

For terms such as these where they are part of a belief system, whether it’s intelligent design or ethnic cleansing or that kind of thing, within the definition is the phrase “is believed to be” or words of that nature. Those qualifiers indicate this is part of a belief system by some, and that in conjunction with the offensive label, will show readers it’s an offensive term and part of certain people’s belief systems.

For example, if you take a look at a word like “genocide” which is obviously a reprehensible act, the definition says what it is, rather than convey people’s thoughts about genocide. So in defining “anchor baby” we would be explaining how and what it is conceived to be.

We recently added the word “truther”, and we define it as one who believes that the government or another powerful agency is conspiring to conceal the truth about its role in an event such as an assassination or an act of terrorism, such as the 9/11 attacks.

So could the term, for instance, be simply defined as a slang phrase used to dehumanize the children of non-citizens born in the United States with a political aim to legitimize the call to do away with birthright citizenship?

It’s a very sticky issue. Not this in particular, just defining in general. The way to go might be using language like what we use for certain single [slur] words like “faggot” or “spic” they are defined as “used as a disparaging term for.” So we have that language at our disposal to preface. The word “anchor baby” does not mean an attitude, it reflects an attitude, but it cannot be defined as an attitude. “Faggot”, for example, is used as a disparaging term for a person as opposed to “a disparaging term used by homophobic people.” We have to define what the term is as opposed to who’s using it. That’s just lexicographical tradition.

The term is racially charged and that context is lacking in the definition. What was the process by which you decided this is the year that anchor baby has to make it into the dictionary?

“Anchor baby” received a lot of play in the media a couple years ago. Here’s one of our criteria: not only was it being used on the national stage, but when journalists were using it, while using the term, they were not explaining what it meant. For example, sometimes you’ll see people using phrases or words and then explain what it means. If they have to give a definition, while talking about it, that’s an indication that it’s not a common word.

But once journalists and the like start throwing out a word without explanation, they are assuming that people will know what it means, and that’s the type of thing that people will go and look up in a dictionary. At that point it entered our radar and we felt there had been enough discussion of it in the political scene to warrant its inclusion.

It’s in our large 2100 page dictionary. We publish smaller abridged versions that don’t include obscenities or slurs. The dictionary is a reflection of society and obviously the sociological implications are: Why is this term being used in society? The answers being: xenophobia, racism and all other things that go with anti-immigration policies. Sadly that is the state of our nation and our world. All we’re doing is holding a mirror up to it.

People most impacted by the term are not happy about it. Why include the term?

It is a sad fact that there are terms in our society that just suck. We are not the people who invented the term, but we are following up on how people have used the term. As a gay man, am I happy about words like “faggot” and what-not? No. “Faggot” is in the dictionary because it is a word people use. [Anchor baby] is something that we would not take out because it is a term people will look up if they come across it. It’s not a pretty term, but it unfortunately exists.

The concept itself has been found to be a myth when you look at immigration law and petitioning of parents and also how long it takes for immigrants to start families. It’s misleading, not just a slur. How will you address that?

This is something that was reiterated by Immigration Impact and this is where certain wording really helps to show that something hinges upon a belief system. Personally, this was not a reaction that we have to fix it because people are angry. We fixed it because we were wrong. And I, as the executive editor, acknowledge the fact that this was an error and I take responsibility for that. And that is also why I am quick to fix it because I believe it needs to be fixed and I stand behind that.

Colorlines | 12/07/11