As per our talk!
I think it’s time to employ the Castle Doctrine to the USA, as that’s our home and deserves to be protected the same as our personal residence against invasion.
“Anchor babies” aren’t really much of an “anchor” if the statutes are followed (which unfortunately they aren’t). If the rules are followed, the anchor baby cannot sponsor anybody else until he or she is no longer a minor, some 18 years later. This is a slow process and assumes the parents still want to live permanently in America 18 years later. Our chiefest problem is not this, but the fact that almost anybody who waltzes northward across the Rio Grande without so much as a “by your leave” will probably be left alone by the US and state government unless they get themselves in major trouble.
The wording “...subject to the jurisdiction of...” intrigues me. Could the newborn infant of illegal aliens be forcibly removed from the (illegals) parent’s custody by a U.S. court because the parents are unfit parents?
Suppose both were drug dealers, alcoholics, or had no visible means of support—things which have resulted in U.S. citizen parents losing custody of their citizen children. My guess is the ACLU would move heaven and earth to prevent the U.S. court from taking such an action. That would seem to me to say the anchor baby is NOT subject to the “jurisdiction of” the U.S. and therefore cannot be a citizen under the 14th Amendment. Just a thought.