[sphinx]

Does anyone here really want to argue that Maria from Tijuana, who slips across the border to deliver her anchor baby in San Diego, has given birth to a "natural born citizen," thanks to the mystical properties of San Diego emergency rooms ...

... BUT the newborn child of a U.S. military family stationed abroad is only "naturalized at birth," with a constitutional status actually inferior to that of the Mexican anchor baby?

[diamond6]

I made this same exact point at 78.

[CpnHook]

Does anyone here really want to argue that Maria from Tijuana, who slips across the border to deliver her anchor baby in San Diego, has given birth to a "natural born citizen," thanks to the mystical properties of San Diego emergency rooms ...

... BUT the newborn child of a U.S. military family stationed abroad is only "naturalized at birth," with a constitutional status actually inferior to that of the Mexican anchor baby?

Would anyone drafting the rules today write the law as to create that outcome? No.

Would someone today argue that is the current state of our law? Yes, because that IS the current state of our law. The relevant terms were laid down in 1787 and 1866 and explicated by the Supreme Court in 1898 -- at a time when the "anchor babies" concept was completely outside purview and before the time when the U.S. maintained a large, constant military presence outside the U.S.

Yes, the current status doesn't make much sense due to changing conditions, and it makes having a coherent immigration policy most difficult.

The answer is "amendment."