Interesting. Carry_Okie has again posted the particulars at #15 that the press blithely choose to ignore. And so, the 'debate' continues.
FWIW, IMO I don't agree with conferring citizenship on anchor babies.
Interesting. Carry_Okie has again posted the particulars at #15 that the press blithely choose to ignore. And so, the 'debate' continues.
FWIW, IMO I don't agree with conferring citizenship on anchor babies.
Protect our borders and coastlines from all foreign invaders!
Support our Minutemen Patriots!
Be Ever Vigilant ~ Bump!
I'll have to read the post again and the related links later, but a question comes to my mind.
If two U.S. citizens (or let's say even just one of the parents is a U.S. citizen) have a baby born abroad, is that child automatically considered a citizen of the United States?
I would think that the child would be a U.S. citizen. It would seem funny to me if the child were not.
This is how I think it should work. In other words, a child born of citzens of Mexico should be considered a citizen of Mexico as well. A child inherits the family name, fortunes, etc. But the family cannot pass on what it does not have, in this case, citizenship which does not belong to either parent.
If the U.S. were invaded by an army from abroad, would children born of that army while hostily on U.S. soil be a U.S. citizen? That wouldn't make much sense.