You are absolutely right. The “anchor baby” birthright citizenship only furthers and legitimizes the concept of chain migration. “Well, if this baby’s an American citizen by birth, you wouldn’t prevent a mother from raising her child, would you?” (sad eyes)
In fact, eliminating the anchor baby would in fact be far more humane than the current system since it would keep families together. If you want to become an American, get in line and learn how to be a good American. Encourage your family to do the same if you really want to stay together.
I’m not convinced you can eliminate that bit about an anchor baby.
Isn’t it stipulated in our constitution that anyone BORN in this country is automatically a citizen?
Thus wouldn’t it require a constitutional ammendment to remove this wording?
Not being Devil’s Advocate here, just wanting the truth.
Birthright citizenship is related to chain migration [however the child cannot sponsor anyone until age 21] and should be eliminated, but chain migration beyond the nuclear family is a far worse problem.
The truth was the parents despite working for the last 10 or so years here were visa out-stayers so they had to go, they even owned their own house but they were deported despite protests locally.
The craziest one though IMHO currently is a cricket coach who claims he feels British has lived here most of his life as a cricketer and after he finished playing coached at a local private school. He has applied for residency/citizenship but has been turned down because he does not hold the qualifications to do the job he is doing. The private school and parents are quite happy but the government is saying that outside this school he would not be employable as a cricket coach so therefore he must go as he visa has expired.
The local people are protesting and he is under appeal. His case I am for him but the couple with children simply ignored the rules and did not actually want Citizenship only to work here different case IMHO.