[usurper]

If their parents chose not to take their little anchor baby with them back to their home country, that’s their problem.

Exactly, where they live has no baring on the status of their US citizenship. There is no residency requirement for a citizen born in the US.

Once they reach the age of 23 they can then petition to have their parents immigrate lawfully as immediate relatives (IR-1).

That is what this anchor baby thing is really about.

[FirstFlaBn]

Once they reach the age of 23 they can then petition to have their parents immigrate lawfully as immediate relatives (IR-1). That is what this anchor baby thing is really about.

That's where the numbers (and the welfare benefits cost) pile up.

Howse about these questions for Boosh and Rubberio: Sir, would you be against deporting violent felons who happen to be the parent of an anchor baby or is "family reunification" more important?

Would you be against a 14th Amendment-compatible policy (under present day's tortured reading) of denying pregnant women visitors visas in order to prevent anchor baby skulduggery?

Maybe Ms. Me-Gyn can get to work on these.

[Hawthorn]

>> Once they reach the age of 23 they can then petition to have their parents immigrate lawfully as immediate relatives <<

And THAT provision, my FRiend, can be changed directly, easily and unambiguously by simple statute. Congress passes and POTUS signs. Period.

In other words, main problem could be solved without all the current hysterical and pointless discussion about the constitutionality of birthright citizenship.