'Anchor babies'. Big controversy, what's your view?

Question

Given current US policy that having a baby in the US entitles you to stay legally, do you think the concept's being purposely abused, is it morally right/wrong etc

Answer 1

The problem is that this (Fourteenth Amendment)has been misinterpreted in recent years to mean simply that anyone born in the U.S, under any circumstances, is an American citizen.
This is neither the original intent of the law nor the way it was interpreted by the courts in subsequent decades. Some Americans speak of birthright citizenship as if it were an immutable law of nature.
It is not, and most other nations do not, in fact, recognize it. It is only a BAD HABIT that could be broken with a simple Executive Order.

According to estimates, some 200,000 so-called anchor babies are born in the United States every year.
Once a mother has birthed a child on American soil, she can then seek to obtain citizenship for herself on the strength of the family-reunification laws.
Even before this happens, she is very hard to deport, as the mother of an American, and the full panoply of welfare benefits is available to her, as is affirmative action if she is a member of a racial minority.

A group of attorneys and immigration experts are trying to do something about the problem RIGHT NOW.

Craig Nelsen, director of Friends of Immigration Law Enforcement Stated :
"The situation we have today is absurd,There is a huge and growing industry in Asia that arranges tourist visas for pregnant women so they can fly to the United States and give birth to an American. This was not the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment; it makes a mockery of citizenship."
(Sound Familiar??)

The key to undoing the current misinterpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment is this odd phrase

"AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF."

The whole problem is caused by the fact that the meaning of this phrase, which was clear to anyone versed in legal language in 1868, has slipped with changes in usage. Fortunately, there is a large group of court precedents that make clear what the phrase actually means:

The Fourteenth Amendment EXCLUDES the children of aliens. (The Slaughterhouse Cases (83 U.S. 36 (1873))

The Fourteenth Amendment draws a distinction between the children of aliens and children of citizens. (Minor v. Happersett (88 U.S. 162 (1874))

The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction" REQUIRES "Direct And Immediate ALLEGIENCE" to the United States, NOT just physical presence.
(Elk v. Wilkins 112 U.S. 94 (1884))

There is NO automatic birthright citizenship in a particular case. (Wong Kim Ark Case, 169 U.S. 649 (1898))

The Supreme Court has NEVER confirmed birthright citizenship for the children of illegal aliens, temporary workers, and tourists.
(Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 211 n.10 (1982))

There are other cases referring to minor details of the question.

Answer 2

Current US policy does not entitle the mother to stay legally. It entitles the child to US citizenship. They call them anchor babies because, in most cases, this event causes the mother to stay in America and bring other relatives to America as well. I don't think the intent is to abuse any policy, I think people are trying to improve their lives and the lives of their children.

Answer 3

It is obviously being abused. There are entire industries setup to bring women here to have children so the rest of the family can come here. The provision was deisgned to make the slaves here citizens, but to provide a method of mass imporation of new people into the US. We should just reinterpret the provision to mean you have to have both parents as citizens in order to become a citizen. It says "subject to the jurisdiction of the Us" or something like that.

This anchor baby provision is a huge magnet that drives illegal immigration. We shouldn't say "don't come, but if you do come and have kids here they become automatic citizens and entitle you and your family to come and stay here"

Answer 4

The constitution and all other relevant laws should be changed to not give automatic citizenship to a child just because they were born inside the U.S. The child should adopt the nationality of the parents or the mother at least. This 'anchor baby' programme is just rife with abuse and manipulation.

Answer 5

I think they shouldn't be allowed to 'game' immigration by coming here illegally to have a baby who is automatically a citizen.

The Supreme Court actually reserved that point to determine later whether such a child should be a citizen, and hasn't yet determined it.

However, the Supreme Court aside, I am not yet in favor of amending the constitution on this point. I think we need to think about it a LOT before we do that.

I am in favor of totally doing away with the idea that residents and citizens can bring in family outside of the immigration quotas, however. The way that could be written in immigration laws respective of citizens is that only citizens who had one unconditional permenant legal resident parent or citizen parent at the time of their birth could bring in family.

We could also say only citizen minors whose parents are legally resident can get welfare and food stamps, etc. I think letting people come across the border pregnant and have children they can't support here in order to get benefits and free delivery service in our hospitals needs to stop.

Answer 6

If both PARENTS are ILLEGAL then, their KID should be TOO!!! You're right, the ILLEGALS do come over here and drop their "anchor babies", and the kid is considered a citizen, so of course the PARENTS get to STAY,to take care of the kid!! I live in a border state, and I've seen it happen TOO MANY times, here in my state, so i KNOW it's true!!! I could not even BEGIN to tell you how many times that i know of,that this has happened!!! These people know OUR laws,better than WE do,and they know how to work the system!!! Or, i should say, ABUSE the system!!!

Answer 7

Of course it's wrong ... and it's also dangerous ...I mean, what's to stop this scenario: Al Quaida busily impregnating 10.000 women per month (low estimate), send them to U.S. on a tourist visa ... they have their babies here and their mothers bring them up in the "faith" ... next month another 10.000 pregnant Al Quaida faithful women arrive ... same story ... and on and on it goes ... there is absolutely nothing to stop that happening ... you didn't think all Al Quaida sympathizers were men, did you?
Who said the U.S. had to be taken over by missiles and bombs? Just outnumber us ... easily done with the present administration allowing an open border policy and anchor baby policy ....

And yars .. I was onto that one too .... but apparently that has been superseded by various Supreme Court judgments in favor of illegals ...

Answer 8

That's not always true. I know a child who came here (illegally) with her boyfriend pregnant The boyfriend was placed (by immigration) with family in the US and after the baby was born the girl was deported and the boyfriend(who stayed in the US) was given a choice of either keeping the baby here with him or the baby going with the mother.

Answer 9

Yes, it's being abused.

The 14th amendment wasn't intended for this purpose either. Subject to jurisdiction was thought to mean those who were citizens. The amendment is being used for those with an agenda.

Answer 10

I think the parents or parent should be here for a certain amount of time before the birth. Running across the border is not fair.