Should the anchor bably law be done away with?

Question

Currently, any baby born on american soil automatically becomes an American citizen. Many illegal immigrants have been taking advantage of this and having children here, which according to the law makes them legal citizens. Should this law be done away with? if so, what affect would this have on the immigration situation we are facing in America?

Answer 1

Why ? A US-born child cannot sponsor his/her parents for legal immigration to the United States until he/she becomes an adult, and illegal immigrant parents do not gain any additional legal rights based solely on the fact that they have had a child born in the US. However, illegal immigrant parents of US-born children often avoid deportation by immigration judges because they are the biological parents of minors, who have every right to be in the US as citizensDeporting the illegal parents of US-born children causes the legal breakup of families, and judges are often unwilling to do this until the child is an adult, at which time the child can apply to sponsor their foreign-born parents for US citizenship.

Answer 2

It's not a law; it's part of the U.S. Constitution. The 14th Amendment states: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Unless you want to mess with the constitution, there's no doing away with it, and constitutional amendments are VERY serious business. To date, the only amendment that has been repealed was the 18th Amendment, which dealt with prohibition; it was repealed by the 21st amendment. Whether the author of the amendment INTENDED to somehow use that to keep out "anchor babies" doesn't matter. The precendent has been set, and it will take a lot to change it, I would imagine.

Answer 3

Actually from what I have seen lately an anchor baby does not automatically give the parents citizenship however, It does them the "right" to stay. It gives the child citizenship. And to your question....Yes, I think the law should done away with. If a child is born here to illegal citizens then the baby should have no rights either.... I think that would control some of the problem.

Answer 4

Of course this law should be done away with. It's a travesty to shackle the American people with the costs of these kids. About 12 years ago, during the floods, a pregnant woman and her husband were crossing illegally when she got hurt. The baby was born nearly dead and with a congenital heart defect. We took in the whole family. Childrens Hospital performed the need surgeries and then...MUCH to my disgust, they were provided with a van to meet their future needs of their disabled child, A HOUSE was built for them and it was FURNISHED. They were given all of the govt. assistance their hearts could desire. Why not risk it??? It's like winning the lottery for most of them...all they need is to drop a kid on this soil and they're in. If they weren't allowed those meal tickets, I think illegal immigration would drop drastically...not to mention the bills we have been footing for it.

Answer 5

While it has a frustrating outcome, no I don't think it should be done away with. I believe that anyone born on US soil should be a citizen. But that should NOT give a pass to the illegal parents.

. I do believe that all illegals should be deported. Children under age of 18 belong with their parents if their parents want them. If illegals.have children under the age of 18, the children should go with them, or custody should be assigned by the parent to a US citizen, or given up altogether.

Once the child reaches the age of 18, he can reenter the US through legal means.

Answer 6

Anyone that argues that it is the law of the land, or that it is in the Constitution or the 14th amendment guarantees it is simply repeating what they hear.Birthright citizenship is a myth.

Ever since the subject of Congress taking up Birthright Citizenship have we seen the power of ignorance at work through the MSM. It is difficult to find any editorial or wire story that correctly gives the reader an honest and accurate historical account of the Fourteenth Amendment in regards to children born to foreign parents within the United States. Most often the media presents a fabled and inaccurate account of just what the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment means.

Recent story lines go something like this: "Currently the Constitution says that a person born in this country is an American citizen. That's it. No caveats." The problem with these sort of statements other than being plainly false is that it reinforces a falsehood that has become viewed as a almost certain fact through such false assertions over time.

Anyone that has studied the 14th amendment, its authors, and the proceedings of the 39th Congress will tell you that the 14th amendment was worded so that it would EXCLUDE birthright citizenship to foreigners and aliens.

Sen. Jacob Howard, who wrote the Fourteenth's Citizenship Clause stated, when introducing the clause to the Senate:

"This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."

Notice the key words foreigners and aliens.

Sen. Howard left no doubt what the clause meant in 1868: "The Constitution as now amended, forever withholds the right of citizenship in the case of accidental birth of a child belonging to foreign parents within the limits of the country."

Now how clear does it have to be?
To those that say it has always been that way? wrong again

Secretary of State, Thomas Bayard, said of a German alien born in Ohio in 1867: "Richard Greisser was, no doubt, born in the United States, but he was on his birth 'subject to a foreign power,' and 'not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.' He was not, therefore, under the statute and the constitution, a citizen of the United States by birth; and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship."

John Peter Sharboro was born in the United States to Italian parents in 1852, his father became naturalized in 1860. At the time of his birth his father was subject to a foreign power, and it was held that John followed the citizenship of his father. Once his father had become naturalized, John automatically became a naturalized citizen of the United States.

The fact is this: There has never been a court case which specifically adressed birthright citizenship to the offspring of illegal aliens. It has NOT always been that way as evidenced by the examples above. It is abundantly clear that the 14th amendment denies birthright citizenship. No one can really say WHO decided otherwise. Who and by what authority did the US start granting automatic citizenship? Granting birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and in direct violation of the citizenship clause of the 14th amendment.

In short there is NO anchor baby law. All that needs to be done is to interpret the 14th amendment as written.

Answer 7

Absolutely. We are one of the few- if not only- countries who has such a law. If two American citizens were in Mexico and had a baby, the baby wouldnt be Mexican and the parents would have to go through a process to get it to be an American citizen. The system is stupid.

Answer 8

Here is one time I'll agree with the old saying,
Throw out the (anchor) baby with the bath water (and the mother too)

Answer 9

No, you can't do away with a law that does not exist. What exactly is an "anchor bably?"

Answer 10

Yes, and all illegals deported.