This judge is weird. Without looking it up, I'm almost sure that a non-citizen's baby has to be born in this country to automatically be a citizen. Otherwise, someone who conceived their child here, then went home and had the baby, would still be able to claim that the baby was a citizen.
"This judge is weird. Without looking it up, I'm almost sure that a non-citizen's baby has to be born in this country to automatically be a citizen. Otherwise, someone who conceived their child here, then went home and had the baby, would still be able to claim that the baby was a citizen."
Not exactly. Since this woman was married to an American citizen, the baby will be entitle to U.S. citizenship, whether born in this country or outside of it. Children of U.S. citizens are entitled to citizenship.
I think the reporter got this wrong. Once the baby is born, it will be entitled to be a U.S. citizen. Therefore, deporting the woman makes no sense, since the child will need to be with its mother after its birth, and will be a U.S. citizen. Therefore, deporting the mother would be a hardship for the soon-to-be born baby.
This has nothing to do with anchor babies at all. It also has little to do with the status of a fetus. The reporter, I think, has misunderstood the ruling.
Article. XIV.
Section. 1. 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.