If 'anchor babies' is too incendiary, how about 'anchor fetuses'?

When the New York Times avoids referring to a term directly in the headline, you know it's a forbidden term.  For example, when they had the torturous task of writing about partial-birth abortions, they didn't have a liberalspeak euphemism for it, so they wrote articles with vague titles like "Republicans call for banning a procedure."  Now we're seeing this again in an article entitled "Discussing Immigration, Donald Trump and Jeb Bush Use an Offensive Term."  The term is so offensive that it couldn't be mentioned in the article.

What is this terrible term?

Anchor babies.

In 2011, it was defined by the American Heritage Dictionary 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 after protests from immigration advocacy groups who complained that the language is a demeaning slur, the dictionary labeled it as "offensive."

Control the language, and you control the debate.  Anchor babies is meant to be a derogatory term because what the parents of said babies are doing is stealing citizenship for their children and eventually for themselves through chain migration.  It would be the same if parents robbed a bank and gave the money to their children, who were then called "robber babies."

The fact that the term is now permissible again is attributable to Donald Trump, who recently won back for us the right to use the term "illegal aliens" for illegal aliens.

Forced to reckon with Mr. Trump's policies, former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida — a moderate on immigration — echoed the phrase on Wednesday.
While he did not agree to a constitutional amendment ending birthright citizenship, Mr. Bush said that better border security was needed to prevent pregnant women from sneaking into the country to deliver their children.
"Greater enforcement so that you don't have, you know, 'anchor babies,' as they're described, coming into the country," Mr. Bush said on Hugh Hewitt's radio program.

This is comical.  Bush obviously is uncomfortable with the term, but he's falling in the polls and needs to pander, so he needs to talk about it, but he doesn't know what to call them.  And the real irony is that even after entering the political peril of using the phrase, he still will not oppose birthright citizenship.

Even the normally taciturn Hillary Clinton emerged from her isolation chamber to pontificate on the matter.

"They're called babies," Hillary Rodham Clinton posted on Twitter.

Babies?  When they are inside the womb, and having their faces cut open, getting their brains crushed, and getting cut into pieces, Hillary Rodham Clinton doesn't call them babies.  She calls them fetuses.  Illegal aliens claim that it is dehumanizing to call anchor babies anchor babies, but liberals have no problem dehumanizing babies by calling them fetuses and then joking over wine and salad about dismembering their bodies, as a Planned Parenthood official was caught on video doing recently.

Hillary Clinton has no right to speak out on "anchor babies" when she calls dismembered babies "fetuses."  But if that is a favorite liberal word, maybe we should do what Mark Levin suggests and call them "anchor fetuses."  That shouldn't upset them, right?  Liberals don't get upset when fetuses are dissected.  What's deportation compared to that?

Just remember: it's all about language.  They want to take away our ability to criticize these people who are stealing citizenship for themselves and their families.  If we lose the ability to say what they are, if we are forced to call them "dreamers," we lose the battle.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/08/if_anchor_babies_is_too_incendiary_how_about_anchor_fetuses.html#ixzz3jV1AOj2y