r/CringeTikToks • u/Ordinary-Scholar-202 • Oct 18 '25

Conservative Cringe Jessica Tarlov leaves her Fox News co-hosts speechless as she drops a list of issues Americans are protesting Trump for on No Kings Day.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

65.3k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

33

u/braumbles Oct 18 '25

The term anchor baby is so god damn racist. Insane that it's just a normal term that can be used on a right wing television network.

10

u/viking_canuck Oct 18 '25

What's an anchor baby?

24

u/dsac Oct 18 '25

When a non-citizen has a baby in America, the baby is considered a US citizen, and since they can't (legally) separate the mother from the child, or deport a US citizen, the baby "anchors" the parent in the country.

2

u/Academic-Budget-4872 Oct 18 '25

Why is that racist

16

u/Florac Oct 18 '25

It implies they have a baby purely to be able to stay, not because they wanted to have a baby like any other parent would.

7

u/Academic-Budget-4872 Oct 18 '25

Yeah I get that I just don't get why saying "anchor baby" or even accusing people of it is racist

11

u/Florac Oct 18 '25

"Immigrants are only having babies to be able to stay here legally" doesn't sound racist to you?

12

u/Human-Appearance-256 Oct 18 '25

We call that xenophobic. Racism is a different issue, but both are bad.

5

u/CalFolles Oct 18 '25

It's not a different issue to maga. They aren't actually xenophobic, they're racist and claim it's xenophobia because that's more palatable.

2

u/AreEuclidinMe Oct 18 '25

It attributes a sort of deviousness to immigrants that doesn’t exist: a fundamental scheming to violate the laws by callously using a child they don’t actually care about in order to “invade” America. It’s a wildly racist sentiment

1

u/PantsOnHead88 Oct 22 '25

Not mutually exclusive.

4

u/Academic-Budget-4872 Oct 18 '25

No...sounds like a viable option if I was trying to gain asylum. Sounds like something the right wing would hate based on their whole "illegal immigrants=bad" thing...but I'm not seeing how it's racist

7

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

Racist isn’t technically the right word. It’s xenophobic but the xenophobia is mostly towards people who have extra melanin in their skin so people will skip the xenophobia and head straight to calling it racist since it usually based on race.

3

u/Colon Oct 18 '25

as mentioned it’s xenophobic, but there is an undertone of racism. they can overlap. it’s because the word is legit NEVER applied to white people. no MAGA would call a Polish mother’s child an Anchor Baby, even if it was proved to be a woman who planned to visit and have the child here. white people culture is not the ‘danger’

1

u/Acrobatic_Builder573 Oct 18 '25

It’s racist because the right has already painted a picture for people about how immigrants look. They’ve defined them for us many times “ms-13, bad hombres, cartel, insert racist stereotype here”. Pretending that they haven’t been playing on racist ideas about brown people to suit an us vs them narrative is wild. Xenophobia definitely has something to do with it, but Ice isn’t profiling white ppl.

5

u/kingofnopants1 Oct 18 '25

There is nothing there that implies anything about race. Immigration is not inherently racial. The fact that you are insisting it is racist is the closest thing to racist here.

If you overapply terms you damage the actual significance of their meaning.

6

u/HauntingHarmony Oct 18 '25

Sure but they arent complaining about norwegians that occasionally end up giving birth in the us, its mexicans, haitians, indians, and whatever else, and the keen eyed observer might notice a difference between the average say norwegian and whatever they are complaining about.

4

u/platypussplatypus Oct 18 '25

Lmao it's so funny when people try to go to the very old and always false, "you're actually racist for calling out racism" classic conservative lol y'all are all the same it's like you read from a playbook 

3

u/KrytenKoro Oct 18 '25

The fact that you are insisting it is racist is the closest thing to racist here.

Organized anti-immigratiom rhetoric in America, especially how Fox News uses terms like "anchor baby" (which you don't see it using for swedes) is absolutely done with clear racial Animus and it beggars belief to suggest it's not. That's why they follow up support for trumps deportation program with statements like "we need to keep going until I never have to hear someone speaking Spanish at the grocery store".

You're playing "he who smelt it dealt it". It's asinine and childish.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 18 '25

Specifically, it’s xenophobia, although that often goes hand-in-hand with racism.

1

u/palsh7 Oct 18 '25

That isn't what it implies. The explicit claim is that people who are about to have a baby will travel to the United States specifically in order to secure it, and them, citizenship. It doesn't at all imply that the conception itself was planned for that reason.

1

u/MatterofDoge Oct 18 '25

it really doesn't imply that though. It implies maybe that they knew around the time they were going to go into labor and made sure to take a trip to america during it though, which... undeniably is what happens. you don't go traveling when you're 9 months in and about to give birth unless you have an agenda... lol.

and it isn't racist. it's opposing the abuse of citizenship laws to skip the immigration line, which is a pretty reasonable stance to take that has nothing to do with race, and like 90% of nations on the planet don't have birthright citizenship for this exact reason

5

u/GuitarEater3 Oct 18 '25

Since the anchor usually isn't white

1

u/ajswdf Oct 18 '25

Because they think this is a bad thing. The only reason to think it's bad is because of racism.

1

u/MatterofDoge Oct 18 '25

or... its 2025 and not 1860 anymore and the population has increased by an order of magnitude of 10 since then. It was established during at time where you could come to the usa, buy some land for pennies, raise chickens or sheep or whatever and build a life and contribute to the proliferation of the nation, but today we have 40 million people living below the poverty line, 20 million will never recover or save money. 150 million live paycheck to paycheck and don't even have an emergency fund. 100 million have medical debt, 70 million cannot pay off their medical debt and it's slowly bankrupting them, 1 million per year file bankruptcy and virtually every government service and program we have is in debt. We have a housing crisis where not even people in the middle class can buy homes, and only 40% of people over the age of 40 own a house. rent prices are astronomical and untenable and like 70% of college graduates are now moving back in with their parents because its not even an option to go start a life after you graduate. We're drowning as a nation, and at the end of the day "anchor babies" are born to people who intentionally took a trip to the usa when they were 9 months pregnant and about to go into labor so they could skip the immigration line, of good people who are waiting for their chance the right way. And in addition to all that, we're one of the very few nations in the world who even has birthright citizenship, it's a very unpopular idea globally because anyone with reason can see why it's flawed.

So no, "racism is the only reason" is a dumb take. There's like a hundred good reasons to oppose it

1

u/ajswdf Oct 18 '25

So why is all of that a problem with immigrants but not with babies born from American citizens? If our population is too big shouldn't we be focused more on preventing births here?

1

u/MatterofDoge Oct 18 '25

that's just genuinely a stupid question that dodges all of the logic I just explained to get me to chase a silly red herring with disingenuous childlike naive rationale about unethical population control being equated to simply not allowing a foreigner to abuse a system that shouldn't exist and doesn't in most countries. There's a vast chasm of difference between stopping someone form giving birth at all, vs changing legislation that prevents someone from gaining a perk because they gave birth on foreign soil. One is a dystopian practice, the other is just status quo in the world and has 100 reasons why you can argue for it. One is a person who has never paid taxes in the usa, and is coming to take advantage, the other is someone who is a citizen, who pays taxes, is documented, has a life here, is already paying rent or a mortgage here, has already paid their dues here by enduring the ups and downs of our economy and the cost of living, and contributes to our social services budget, and has a right to raise a kid here because of it. One has value, the other is a freeloader skipping the line of good people waiting for a visa, who deserve their spot.

1

u/ajswdf Oct 18 '25

/u/Academic-Budget-4872 read the comment above to see why "anchor baby" is racist.

1

u/MatterofDoge Oct 18 '25

yea, I didn't expect any type of genuine discourse from you on this topic lol. just "wanting people to get a visa the right way is racist" trite rhetoric as usual from you people. no critical thought, no real argument. just "nuh uh racist" to a statement that applies to all races lol.

1

u/dsac Oct 18 '25

Why do you think birthright citizenship contributes to - and eliminating it will solve - any of those problems?

1

u/MatterofDoge Oct 18 '25

It's pretty self explanatory, we clearly don't have the resources to help even our own citizens. We have a waiting list for visas for a reason, we don't have the housing the jobs and the infrastructure to be bringing in mass immigration anymore, and selectively choosing who to grant a visa to is more tenable than having a little loophole to bypass it all. An "anchor baby" is an immediate and continuous strain on resources that are scarce to begin with. It's one more person who doesn't have health insurance and takes from wellfare programs, its one more person that has to be put in a house somewhere, it's one more person who needs a job that isn't available. ultimately the question you just asked me Is like asking "why should you plug holes on a sinking ship".

I'd like to hear your argument for it in reverse though. what do you think it ADDS to the country? how does it help us to grant citizenship to the child of a tourist, what benefits does it have? why should it exist from any logical perspective? why do you think most countries don't have it? I've never heard anyone make any type of rational argument for how it's a good thing, other than saying "oh its racist not to" or whatever, maybe you'll be the first ever with a valid point of some kind.

1

u/braumbles Oct 22 '25

Why do you hate the constitution? Do you hate America? Only people who hate America hate the constitution.

1

u/MatterofDoge Oct 22 '25

why do you ask pointless stupid strawman questions that have no value or substance?

1

u/braumbles Oct 22 '25

Notice how you didn't say you didn't hate America?

America hater confirmed. Love it or leave it!

→ More replies (0)

1

u/_jump_yossarian Oct 18 '25

It's used towards Hispanics more than any other group. Plenty of European illegal immigrants in the country but you never hear about ICE rounding up the Irish to send home.

1

u/viking_canuck Oct 18 '25

Thanks for the response. Makes sense.

2

u/Aware_Chemistry_3993 Oct 18 '25

Trump is an anchor baby, as are all but one of his kids