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."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/09/revised-definition-anchor-baby-part-leftist-agenda-critics-say/?test=latestnews#ixzz1g8Ivh8Sg]]

Who cares. They ARE anchor babies and Hoodie's. If they dont like being called that they can go back to whatever country they came from.

The Anchor Baby laws needs to be changed immediately. We should NOT be giving citizenship because the mom snuck into the country illegally to drop out a child so they can milk our sytem even more.

I agree. It should require at least 1 parent to be a citizen to grant automatic citizenship.

And, the Illegal parent immediately deported.
The baby-momma can decide to go with or no.

Just because they are not a citizen doesn't mean they are illegal lol. There are many reasons to be here legally as a non citizen. If you are married to a citizen you are not granted citizenship but a visa. They could be here on a work or tourist visa as well.

Just because someone marries an Illegal doesn't automatically qualify them for a VISA.
There are all kinds of VISA's.
Permission to shop in a border town, Work, Student, or to visit/travel for various lengths of time. From one day to however long they work out with Immigration.

If they are here on a work, student or tourist Visa and have a child on United States soil, the child isn't granted automatic citizenship. The child has to be old enough to decide they wish to be a United Stated citizen before being granted citizenship. Only illegals having a child on United States soil will the child be granted automatic citizenship.

Oh so if you are here LEGALLY then it's not automatic, but if you hop the fence and pop one out, they're automatically a citizen. No wonder our Nation is screwed-up with inane laws like that!

Yepper, LOL....

the day is coming that I think it will be repealed

in this age of travel, it would become too increasingly easy for adults to decide which country they wish their child to be citizen of and travel there for the sole purpose of giving birth to afford their child those rights,,,,

too big of a loophole,,, I think one adult should have gone through the effort to become a citizen before their child is automatically deemed,,,,,

Both should be required to be citizens.

Actually, I think they need to be sentanced to hard labor for several years before they are deported AND also lose any chance of EVER becoming a citizen.

Just deporting them does nothing. They end up back within a week or two anyways. If there were some STIFF penalties it would make them think twice about entering our country illegally.

There is one situation that is really scary............I remember reading about it recently. A child of a diplomat if they are born in the United States can become a citizen immediately AND they also have Diplomatic Immunity.

It needs to be repealled along with the Posse Com. Act.

Actually they are pretty sick puppies. They purposely use their new born babies as pawns. They do everything they can to pop out the kid in the United States knowing that it will become a United States the moment they give birth. They also then use it as an advantage if someone tries to deport them because they are illegal they hit all the news outlets saying the United States is trying to break up their family(when they can take the kid with them back to Mexico, but they choose to make them a pawn proving that their kids are nothing more to posessions to them.

They should also be required to speak English.

I disagree. Why should both be required? Why cant an american give birth on american soil to an american?

I dont know of a legal precedent for such a policy, internationally speaking.

Because they both should have to be citizens. Illegals having babies that become citizens should not be allowed to happen under any circumstances especially when they are having that child for the sole purpose of it being a pawn.

Why not? We spend hundreds of millions of dollars printing things in several different languages. They are moving here, they need to adapt to our culture and society, not the other way around.

Plus with all the money problems we are having right now we would be saving a LOT of money if we only printed everything in English!