Dear Congressman Billybob.
Anchor Babies are not necessarily Birthright Citizens.
These are two very seperate issues.
The 1996 Immigration Reform Act eliminated the “Anchor Baby” that most people assume is by citizenship. The law established that custody follows the parents regadless of citizenship.
Thus the previous use of a child’s citizenship to hold custody of the parents was dead.
What followed was all sorts of attempts at hoop jumping of immigration lawyers whose business was collapesed due to the elimination of citizenship anchorage. They went to special needs which were usually very hard to establish or prove. (ie ritalin is available in other countries for ADHD diagnosed children)
The Dream Act was an attempt by senator durbin to make ALL minors in public school into anchor babies regadless of citizenship. This would have meant any illegal minor could become the anchor for serial immigration by just being in public school for two years. To add insult to injury, Senator Durbin provided such student status anchor babies could be as old as 30!
As a lawyer, I have seen where my immigration collegues were impacted by the 1996 anchor baby elimination. I have also seen their excitement at the potential return of the anchor baby.
Birth Right citizenship is a dangerous red herring to anchor babies. We have to be VERY VIGILANT that the left in congress does not do another Dream Act attempt to make anchor baby status back into law and undo the 1996 revision.
It was one enforcement law that has worked because it has been indicated when immigration lawyers lost that business.
John / Billybob