[nathanbedford]

You have put your finger on the problem. Domicile is a matter of intent as well as residence, that is, the facts must show some indicia of an intention to live permanently. That means that every case is a factual case and that raises infinite problems of adjudication and bureaucracies. If we have tens of millions of illegal aliens in our midst and many of them are giving birth on a daily basis, how is this to be adjudicated? Who will pay for the process? Who has the burden of proof?

The other suggests practical ways that this administrative nightmare can be managed.

My problem is a statistical one, I suspect the drive-by tourism babies are the smallest part of the anchor baby problem with "domiciled" illegal aliens throughout the country. If this is so, we have no solution that brings practical relief except to remember that chain migration is not constitutionally mandated just because domicile creates another anchor baby.

[mrsmith]

“drive-by tourism babies are the smallest part of the anchor baby problem”

Yeah, but it’s something. And the process of passing a law to end it would IMO help build the case with the public for further action.

Great article! My favored argument is that the US government has partially surrendered it’s jurisdiction over illegals through non-enforcement.
In international law even an implied voluntary surrender of jurisdiction by a nation is a significant point. But, of course, I’m no lawyer and there are other points that would matter- points that I can’t imagine.