Posted on 05/16/2019 8:54:37 AM PDT by Kaslin
Immigration, both legal and illegal, remains a hot debate topic as we move into the 2020 election season. One subject falling under that umbrella is the concept of anchor babies, i.e. children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally. Under the legal principle of jus soli (law of the soil), such children are determined to be citizens, often offering a foothold for the parents to remain in the country as well. But is that a popular position for Democrats to run on?
Probably not as popular as you might think, despite the positive coverage such family situations receive on most cable news outlets. Scott Rasmussen recently conducted a poll on the subject, and support for anchor baby citizenship doesn’t even reach a majority. Further, if a pregnant woman enters the country illegally to give birth, a strong plurality doesn’t believe she should be allowed to stay.
Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters nationwide believe that a child born in the United States to an illegal immigrant should be considered a U.S. citizen. A ScottRasmussen.com national survey found that 41% disagree and 10% are not sure. These attitudes are little changed since November.
However, in the case of a pregnant woman who enters the country illegally and gives birth, just 32% believe she should be allowed to remain in the country. That’s down six points since last fall. Forty-seven percent (47%) do not believe she should be allowed to stay while 22% are not sure.
Of course, just because people don’t approve of something, that doesn’t mean that they can dismiss it. The standing argument in favor of birth citizenship is rooted in the first words of the Fourteenth Amendment. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States…”
More recently there has been an argument over whether there’s an escape clause in that text. It’s not enough to simply be born on American soil. You also have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Are illegal aliens subject to the jurisdiction of the United States government? If we look at the findings in Plyler v. Doe, the answer would appear to be yes, but the concept hasn’t been challenged in court recently.
So at least for the moment, a child born on American soil is considered a citizen and the mother can’t be prosecuted for coming to the country for the purpose of skirting immigration law. But anyone helping her do so can be punished. In February of this year, we saw the first ever arrests of individuals in California for operating so-called “birth tourism” operations. Three men were charged with facilitating the temporary entry of pregnant women, mostly from China, for the purpose of giving birth in American hospitals and obtaining birth certificates for their babies.
The reason I bring up that case is the obvious question it raises. If we don’t have a law against coming into the country and giving birth for purposes of obtaining citizenship for the baby, how can it be illegal to offer a service helping a woman to do that? The three men in that story were charged with, “conspiracy to commit immigration fraud.” But usually, when we think of immigration fraud it involves people who marry immigrants for the sole purpose of getting them a green card. This case may lead to new rulings that touch on the question of birthright citizenship, so we should keep an eye on how that plays out.
I fully support de-citizenship for all “studies” majors at EVERY college in the country.
Improves the country IQ, raises college standards, aids the homeless and drug problems, and greatly reduces our welfare roles.
Deport anchor babies with family it keeps the family together.
They always miss the part that reads: “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Which disqualifies ALL illegal aliens.
Yup.
“...birth citizenship is rooted in the first words of the Fourteenth Amendment...”
The 14th was added after the Civil War to guarantee the freed slaves would be citizens. It should not apply to any other cases - should not apply to foreign-born non-citizens.
“Few support citizenship for anchor babies”
Everyone here who pontificates that Kamala Harris is an eligible POTUS candidate absolutely supports NATURAL BORN citizenship for anchor babies.
They don’t “miss the part”, they completely ignore it because doing otherwise destroys their argument.
Since Congress refuses to address this problem, among many others, maybe it is time for states to take the matters into thier hands through ConCons.
Anyone whose birth in the U.S. is based upon illegal entry or the illegal overstaying of a visa issued to the mother, is not truly an American and is not deserving of citizenship.
Citizenship should never be bestowed as the result of a criminal action.
Imagine breaking into someone’s house and using that as the predicate for demanding to be included as part of the family of the homeowner(s).
Bet the numbers would have been higher had more of us had known about the poll.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.