There is no anchor baby law per se. There have been interpretations of law which many say are flawed. At issue is not whether Rubio is a citizen. As the law is interpreted he most certainly is.
There is a grey area about whether he is eligible to serve as President. If indeed there is a third class of citizens: natural born, citizens and naturalized citizens he is not. To the best of my understanding there would have been no reason for the framers to have created a third class identical with citizenship. The reasoning and historical letters/writings from the time suggest that they were intent on protecting the country from a leader with foreign loyalty and that was the reason a distinct class of citizens was defined for President & Vice President.
Sadly they failed to make their intent clear enough that it could not be muddied subsequently. At this time we have several candidates who have some entanglements with foreign allegiance but no clear standard to establish whether they are natural born citizens within the criterion set forward by the constution. Precedence from Obama’s assumption of the office is that the distinction is not being enforced which I believe leaves the country at risk for precisely the issue the founders sought to address.
I hope that later administrations and Supreme courts will clarify this murky situation since it is vitally important. There are substantial benefits conferred with citizenship with the cost borne by the current American people. Birthright citizenship is not in the interest of the people or of America. Citizenship should be awarded to people who have chose to come here, are here legally and who pledge to be loyal American, who will obey our laws and cherish our freedoms. Our President should be free of foreign entanglements and loyalties.
I think that Obama is what the Framers were trying to avoid with their birth laws. I’m not saying there is a fake birth certificate.
I’m saying that his loyalties are divided by the nature of his tenuous connection to our country. First, he is the child of a foreigner from an Islamic background. His mother was very young, and then remarried another Islamic foreigner who raised Obama a considerable period of time in Indonesia, an Islamic country.
His loyalties are at best mixed. I think they’re in opposition to America.
In the case of Rubio his parents really had no place else to go and knew it. The case of his mother is different than his father who held out longer. Perhaps he was hoping to return to Cuba. I don’t know.
In any case, Rubio was born in America and connected to America.
In the case of Ted Cruz, his mother is clearly an American citizen with a lifelong connection to our country. His Cuban father might have been similar to Rubio’s, hoping perhaps for a return to Cuba, but he overcame that in receiving Canadian citizenship. Cruz received Canadian citizenship by virtue of birth there, but his mother had no binding emotional connection to that country. Nor did his father, really.
They left and returned to the US when Cruz was about 3, iirc. Cruz’s connection has never been anyplace but to this country. Humans have little in the way of memory prior to 3 years old.
Nothing is clear enough that a lawyer or two can't call even common sense into question.