Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ScottFromSpokane

"This judge is weird. Without looking it up, I'm almost sure that a non-citizen's baby has to be born in this country to automatically be a citizen. Otherwise, someone who conceived their child here, then went home and had the baby, would still be able to claim that the baby was a citizen."




Not exactly. Since this woman was married to an American citizen, the baby will be entitle to U.S. citizenship, whether born in this country or outside of it. Children of U.S. citizens are entitled to citizenship.

I think the reporter got this wrong. Once the baby is born, it will be entitled to be a U.S. citizen. Therefore, deporting the woman makes no sense, since the child will need to be with its mother after its birth, and will be a U.S. citizen. Therefore, deporting the mother would be a hardship for the soon-to-be born baby.

This has nothing to do with anchor babies at all. It also has little to do with the status of a fetus. The reporter, I think, has misunderstood the ruling.


32 posted on 06/07/2004 2:22:06 PM PDT by MineralMan (godless atheist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: MineralMan

Hey, I'm a busy man! I don't have time to read stuff before I respond to it.


35 posted on 06/07/2004 2:23:28 PM PDT by ScottFromSpokane (Re-elect President Bush: http://spokanegop.org/bush.html)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson