Trump Proposes to End Anchor Babies...

There wasn't even a concept of "illegal aliens" when the 14th amendment was drafted or even for most of our country's history. It is a modern contrivance.

 

While I'm no constitutional scholar, I very much doubt that Trump would be able to do this by executive order. I also would ask, why didn't he try to do it during his term? Seems like another empty promise like his "health plan that will be better than anything you have" and "Mexico will pay for the border wall", appealing to the primary voters.

This said, I'm utterly and completely against unrestricted birthright citizenship. In fact, there are only two developed countries in the world that practice it: the United States, and Canada. And see, Canada is shielded from illegal aliens crossing their borders to have babies there, for the most part, because they only share a border with the United States (and with certain French territories). There used to be a third developed country that practiced it, Malta, but they recently walked away from it.

No European country practices the unrestricted form of it. Not Australia. Not New Zealand. Not Japan. Not South Korea. And so on.

There are about 30 countries that practice it, the US, Canada, and mostly South American (except Colombia) and Central American / Caribbean countries (and two African countries, Tanzania and Chad). Like I said, only two developed countries (one may argue that maybe it's four, given that Chile and Uruguay are fairly developed).

Why? Because a developed country can't afford it. It will become a magnet for anchor babies and the phenomenon of obstetric tourism. Did you know that there are obstetric clinics in Florida that cater to wealthy foreigners who come here just days before delivering a baby, to grant to the baby the American citizenship for future use "just in case" or for future business advantages? I find it preposterous.

I think the world has changed a lot since the 14th amendment, and I would like to have it rewritten to put in place restrictions such as, in case of foreign parents, at the very least, a child born here will only be granted American citizenship if at least one parent is legally here on a permanent lawful status such as a permanent immigrant visa (a.k.a. a green card). I would actually prefer the idea of at least one parent being an American citizen by birth or naturalization without extending it automatically to green card parents. I'd include a provision stating that if a green card parent then later becomes a naturalized citizen, then his/her children born here would also acquire citizenship.

The number of countries that adopt unrestricted birthright citizenship is shrinking (and for good measure) and the United States should also walk away from it.

My hope that this will happen is slim. It would take bipartisan action to rewrite or revoke and substitute the 14th amendment, with one better written that would exclude the children of illegal aliens, and the Democrats will never vote for it.

​

 

Again, I have a reasonable idea of what you want.

But, I don't see how the 14th amendment supports what you want (or don't want).

The SCOTUS ruling is pretty strong evidence.

 

The 14th amendment clearly means what it says and what the writers of it meant and intended. It wasn't the first time SCOTUS got it wrong. They had gotten it wrong before, and thence, and will again in the future.

 

OK, so now the question is how one can interpret the 14th amendment in any way OTHER than how the SC has interpreted it.

That's what I've been asking.

 

This is a double edged sword. I think there was logic (even though I might disagree) on both sides, including the courts, in the Ark case. There was reasonable doubt regarding Ark's parents having allegiance to America and I could have probably lived with that. One can have allegiance to America but still be a citizen of another country or even have allegiance to the other country, IMO. .But the court did not limit its rule to the specifics of that individual case (as they clearly could have) but ruled in essence the general that said anytime anyone is born within the borders of the US, no matter the circumstances or the mother's history, allegiance, residence, or anything else, that new born is an American citizen -- even if the new born returns with its mother to the country they came from and never ever comes back or spends another day on American soil. . That is absolutely not what the 14th amendment prescribed in its words are in the intent of the writers.

 

All foreigners on this soil, illegal or not, are subjected to US Laws, and afford the protection of the US Constitution. If they committed a crime, they will have a trial, be afforded a lawyer and if found guilty of their crimes, will serve jail time before being deported. If that isn't subject to the jurisdiction thereof, then I have no idea what is. Allegiance isn't a requirement no matter what opponents say. And comparing this to Roe v. Wade is beyond ludicrous. There aren't ANY amendments that specifically say anything about abortion.

 

Well then you have no idea what it is. Here's a thought, read what the drafters of the Amendment said it means.

Correction, the ARK court specifically used ARK's parents LEGAL presence and residence as the basis of their ruling. Without legal presence, the circumstances change. If ARK's parents were here illegally, the majority very well could have and probably would have ruled against ARK.

All Trump is talking about doing is drafting an EO that follows the ARK precedent. Furthermore, even foreigners with visas don't have a right to enter the country. The Trump administration did issue new guidance to customs and border control giving them the authority to specifically deny any pregnant women suspected of using a tourist visa for birth of a child. That guidance is still in effect.

 

Denying a pregnant woman from entry have got zero to do with the 14th amendment. Once the woman is here, and if the child is born here, he/she will be a citizen of the US.

 

I would say that they DID mention the circumstances. They wrote it in a way such that the only circumstance of import is that of being under US jurisdiction.

That is more direct than trying to itemize the negative.

 

That's what some are hoping to change.

 

According to the drafters and the congress that wrote the 14th amendment, under the jurisdiction of means precisely allegiance to. It is correct that anyone on our soil is under the the jurisdiction of local and federal law and has certain constitutional protection in such circumstances, but if they were born here to a non-allegient mother they are not a citizen.

 

I think it is quite simple and clear. If a person is born on our soil to a mother who has no allegiance to America and does not reside in any state, that person is not an automatic citizen.

 

No, there are people in the USA who are NOT under US jurisdiction.

If they break our laws, the most we can do is ask them to leave.

And, there is no way to test allegiance, so making that a criterion doesn't work.

 

There isn't any test for allegiance.

As for the rest, read the 14th amendment citizenship clause.

 

That is true. The court did talk about residence and such. But its ruling has been taken to cover every and all circumstances of a child being born on American soil -- way beyond Ark's circumstances..

 

No, not for any rational discourse. EVERYONE on our soil is under our jurisdiction except foreigners living in a a sovereign embassy. Even diplomats are under our jurisdiction. The only deviance is the punishment that can be applied to an immune diplomat who breaks the law.

 

There is adjudication for jillions of things that aren't explicitly described in the law.

 

To change it, we would need to do so by a revision to the 14th amendment, not by way of an illegal EO.

 

No. No such language of allegiance exist in that amendment. And there were zero discussion regarding allegiance when Congress adopted the amendment. If that is what they wanted, they should have spelled it out.

 

We're on page 22 and you'll just a BIT behind. The Ark case changed the 14th Amendment. Even the government argued that. Trump's proposed EO is directly in line with SC precedent. No amount of propaganda/liberal talking points changes that.

 

The ARK case reaffirmed the 14th amendment, it changes nothing. If the GOP thought so, they wouldn't be trying to change it by introducing this bill

 

Well, I'd hardly call it a "contrivance". There IS and should be a distinction between a legal immigrant and an illegal alien. And I agree, it wasn't a concept or an issue when the 14th amendment was drafted, but it has been a legal distinction since the 1920s and the close of open immigration and there ARE laws addressing illegal immigration. I don't deem the 1920s "modern" as opposed to 1866 per se. So it seems possible to me that arguments could certainly be made as to how or whether the 14th does or should apply in these different circumstances, especially whether it allows different treatment based upon immigration circumstance. It would be an interesting question for today's Supreme Court to consider, IMO.

 

Sorry, but the truth hurts. "Birth tourism" may happen, but it does not happen the way you think it does or how the internet, which is where you are obtaining the myths about birth tourism occurs. It is rarer than you think. People do not generally come here to get pregnant. If they are pregnant, and require a visa, then they must acknowledge that on the DS 157 form. The question is formed what is the primary reason for coming to the United States, and if they list medical reasons, that alien must now provide what that medical reason is. Then the person who they are interviewed may ask the question especially if the woman has a baby bump that is showing.

to put this in perspective, we issued over 1.2 million tourist visas annually. Of that, CIS estimates that 30,000 give birth annually. That is a very small percentage in terms of tourist visas. Since 2020, USCIS and the State department have issued new rules for pregnant women that should reduce the intentional birth tourism effort by some. But that does not factor in whether the woman had complications while traveling too even though it is not recommended by the IATA for pregnant women more than 6 months pregnant not to air travel long distances. In addition, US women are traveling abroad to find cheaper alternatives while giving birth and that child can still be a US citizen as long as one parent is a USC. There is a procedure for that to happen with the State Department under the jus sanguinis law.

 

The first step is to fill out the DS 157 and 157A form. This is the background form for any and all visas issued by the state department. You also fill out the DS 160 form which is the nonimmigrant visa form. This form identifies which visa you are applying to from B1/B2 to F1/J1 to others. This is in addition to any USCIS form one may need to fill out for certain nonimmigrant visas.

But that is the process now. But the law for who is eligible to fill out that form, the word inadmissible is used and that definition. The definition of who is inadmissible may have changed, but not the concept which is the point I am making. And with the Chinese Exclusion Act, people of Chinese origin or nationality were deemed inadmissible under the law.