Hypothetically speaking, even if all legal voters in the USA supported the idea of automatic citizenship for anchor babies, based on the intentions of the proposers of the 14th Amendment as indicated by the congressional record, if neither parent of a baby born in the USA is a USA citizen then their USA-born child is likewise not a USA citizen.
Thanks to Mark Levin, below are excerpts from the congressional record which show this. The first excerpt is the clarification of the 14th Amendment’s jurisdiction clause by post-Civil War Senator Jacob Howard.
"The first amendment is to section one, declaring that “all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.” I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been so fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion. This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens [emphases added], who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.” — Senator Jacob Howard, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session.
And to clear up any confusion about “foreigners” and “aliens” in the excerpt above being used to describe the family members of ambassadors or foreign ministers, the excerpt below is another official perspective on what the 14th Amendment’s jurisdiction clause means.
"Of course my opinion is not any better than that of any other member of the Senate; but it is very clear to me that there is nothing whatever in the suggestions of the Senator from Wisconsin. The provision is, that “ all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.” That means “subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.” Now, does the Senator from Wisconsin pretend to say that the Navajo Indians are subject to the Complete jurisdiction of the United States? What do we mean by “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States?” Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means. [emphases added] Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court? Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States? By no means. We make …” — Senator Lyman Trumbull, Congressional Globe, 1774 - 1875 Congressional Globe, Senate, 39th Congress, 1st Session. (See middle of first column.)
The reason that there’s so much confusion about the 14th Amendment’s jurisdiction clause imo, is because activist justices twisted the intentions of the drafters of that amendment when they decided the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark in his favor.
This explosive document filed in Texas by the government of Mexico adds fuel to the debate touched off by Donald Trump.....
THE MONEY QUOTE A footnote states that “Mexican nationality is granted to children born abroad of a Mexican born parent.” IOW, anchor babies born in the US retain their parents’ Mexican nationality.
A sworn affidavit by Mexico’s consul general admits that Mexico’s official policy is to encourage its poor people to migrate here illegally in order to access the US’s generous welfare system......declaring that “Mexico is responsible to protect its nationals wherever they may be residing,”
The Mexican consul’s sworn testimony asserts that “My responsibilities in this position include protecting the rights and promoting the interests of my fellow Mexican nationals” and “The main responsibility of consulates is to provide services, assistance, and protection to nationals abroad.”
Ergo, Mexico’s assertion of continuing jurisdiction over its “nationals abroad,” is inconsistent with any claim to automatic US citizenship merely by reason of birth on US soil.
=====================================================
MEXICO IS SLOBBERING AT THE US PUBLIC TROUGH The "impoverished" Mexicans here send BILLIONS of US tax dollars collected under multiple identities BACK to Mexico. The federales are getting a huge cut of that. Prolly Mexico also gets a fee for letting other countries use their border as a gathering place to slither into the US.
=====================================================
Trump accurately tells Americans oil-rich Mexcio is ripping us off royally......and is pocketing billions from deal after deal. This is in addition to millions in US foreign aid to "help" them w/ then the drug cartel problem.
======================================================
NOW GIMMEE THIS AGAIN Mexico's official policy is to send their impoverished classes over the border to ride the US gravy train...but declares that “Mexico is responsible to protect its nationals wherever they may be residing.”
OK....comprende, amigo.
Now tally up the welfare bill and send it to Mexico.