"DESPISE language that is honest. "

 Non-Citizen Mother.

 A baby from a Non-Citizen Mother.

 If a legal US Citizen male has a child with a Non-Citizen Mother what part of Non-Citizen Mother doesn't apply to the term?

"That's a citizen, not an anchor baby."

 An anchor baby is defined in this thread as a child of a Non-Citizen Mother.  If we were using language that is honest we wouldn't try to alter that definition.

 Mother.  Non-citizen Mother, not "Parents".  Mother.

 Want to explain how if a US citizen Male marries a Non-Citizen Mother, a female biological parent, of a child born in the US is not by definition an anchor baby?

 What part of a married Non-Citizen Mother married to a US citizen Father does not match the anchor baby definition?

"Do you really not see how different that is from a pregnant illegal alien slipping in and dropping a baby?"

 It is different, but since I am using honest language I am going to use the definition and not try to change it to suit my scenario.  There is a difference between two illegal alien parents having a child in the US, but only the mother is needed to define anchor baby.  So to me the issue isn't if Trump had an anchor baby, but if one or two biological Illegal Alien parents having a child in the US should be entitled to having that child considered a US citizen.

 I agree except for the part where you say that a baby born to a Non-Citizen Mother yet has a US citizen father is not an anchor baby.

 If we were to use honest language we would not deny that a US citizen father of a child from a Non-Citizen Mother is an anchor baby.

 What part of a situation where a US Citizen Father has a child born in the US to a Non-Citizen Mother does not fit into the described definition of "Non-Citizen Mother"?

 I agree.

 However, what part of the definition "Non Citizen Mother" makes a situation where a US Citizen father marries a Non Citizen, then she has a baby prior to citizenship means that the baby does not fit the definition of anchor baby?

 From an honest language perspective that is.

 If using honest language and that language says "Non-Citizen Mother" why would one say that a Non-Citizen mother married to a US Citizen Father can not have an anchor baby?

 I didn't say you NEED a baby.

 The content of the conversation is about people who have babies in the US.  If that baby has a Non-Citizen Mother, that baby by definition is an anchor baby.

 If that same Non-Citizen Mother is married to a US Citizen father, she has also an anchor husband.  

 Non-Citizen Mother now has both an anchor baby, and anchor husband but only if constitutionally the citizenship is guaranteed by marriage.  But it isn't.

 What part of a Non-Citizen Mother, marrying a US Citizen father and having a baby on US soil removes that baby from the definition of "Non-Citizen Mother?

 Lets make it simple: does that baby have a Non-Citizen Mother?  

 Yes or No?

"You don't call something an anchor IF you don't NEED it to BE an anchor. "

 I agree.  I am just using honest language here.

 "Non-Citizen mother" is hard to define any other way.

 So the definition is wrong.

 The honest language needs to be revised.  An Anchor baby is a baby of a Non-Citizen mother that is not married to a US Citizen Father at the time of the child's birth.  

 Even if marriage doesn't guarantee citizenship?