[Cyrano]

Originally Posted by BaserRonin

Cyrano: I believe the concept of The Anchor Baby is largely a myth. This is based on the 14'th amendment, and has been repeatedly argued. It falls under the same type of mis-interpretation as the 2'nd amendment argument in my opinion. An illegal immigrant mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her child. This is just another issue that we are spending tax dollars on arguing in the courts, which should be a non-issue anyway IMO.

Respectfully, I must disagree, BaserRonin. The concept of the Anchor Baby, despite the politically correct types' hatred of the term, is on point. An American citizen with family outside the country has a priority over immigrants with permanent residence in bringing their family members to the United States and obtaining permanent residence for them. The laws are intended to allow adult naturalized Americans to bring their families here so they can become Americans too. Butthat's not how the illegals are working it.

The 14th Amendment is not the only law on this point. The case of US v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 established a Supreme Court precedent that a child born of non-citizens of the United States is born an American IF - and it's a pretty big IF - his parents are foreign nationals, who have a permanent home here, who are not members of a foreign diplomatic corps or carrying on the business of a foreign nation, but who are conducting business (which presumably includes labor) in the United States. It was intended to smack down some of the anti-Oriental laws of the time. It's why we had a whole pile of Nisei in Hawaii and on the West Coast in World War II. The parents (the Isei) weren't American citizens, they were still Japanese nationals; but they lived and worked here, owned houses, rented property, ran businesses. They were resident aliens. They met the detailed criteria set by Wong Kim Ark.

It's different with anchor babies. The Supreme Court has never ruled on their specific condition, being born in America of parents not in the United States legally, who do not meet all of the criteria laid down by Wong Kim Ark. It is assumed that the anchor babies are Americans by virtue of jus soli, by being born on American soil. That's what was established by the 14th Amendment, as clarified by Wong Kim Ark in 1898. But unlike the parents in the Wong Kim Ark case, the parents often don't have permanent residences or conduct business here that would cause them to pay taxes, which might give them some legitimacy in the eyes of the law. Even if the parents did otherwise meet the criteria of US v. Wong Kim Ark, the parents in the Wong Kim Ark case were here legally. It is possible that the English Common Law doctrine of "the fruit of the poisonous tree" might be more on point than Wong Kim Ark.

In the past 10 years, there have been bills proposed to seriously modify the application of the 14th Amendment, so that in order for a child to qualify for citizenship, at least one of the parents must be an American citizen. The precedent is of an American-citizen mother giving birth outside the United States; her child is automatically a US citizen. There is also the rarely-invoked law that permits an American who fathers a child out of wedlock to acknowledge his bastard before the kid's 18th birthday, pay child support, and prove by "blood evidence" (which in this day and age means DNA evidence) that the kid is actually his.

However, none of these bills has even made it out of committee for debate. Neither have proposals for a Constitutional amendment to clarify the 14th Amendment by specifying at least one parent must be an American citizen in order for a child to be an American citizen by birthright.

I fee that as jus soli is currently being abused, it is a loophole in our immigration laws that needs to be seriously examined and/or eliminated. The 14th Amendment was intended to clarify the status of children of foreign nationals intending to become American citizens, not provide specious grounds for tolerating illegal aliens in our culture. There's a big difference between legal and illegal. And I do believe that "the fruit of the poisonous tree" is on point in the debate, just as Wong Kim Ark is.