Should the United States of America do away with the "anchor baby" provision in its Immigration Law?
Answer:
Yes. It negates all the reasons for having an immigration policy in the first place. You can't tell someone it's illegal to come here without the proper documentation but if by chance you decide to do so, we'll guarantee the citizenship of any children born in our country.
Yes! The fact that the parents are here illegally is the qualifier. This gives the impression that being a citizen and the rights that go with it, can be stolen. Its a loophole. Kick them out. And their felonious parents.
I think that a child should automatically get the citizenship of thier parents. I dont think that it should matter where the child was born, or on who's soil.
Absolutely!! Thats why they keep illegally coming. If they had children over here and then told they couldnt receive benefits on them, I guarantee you they would stop sneaking and/ or coming and spitting out a dozen kids.
nope, there's no reason for that. These kids don't have any fault for their parents' status and will probably grow up to be just like any other American citizen.
I don't know, I still have to think about it.
Yes, please!
NO...and neither does anyone who has ever read the 14th amendment.
Look into it
It is a dilema, but it will take alot to change this law, if in fact it is a law.
Yes, it would kill their reason for coming here.
One or both parents should be American Citizens in order for a child to be one.
YES!!
The 14th Amendment was meant to make SLAVES citizens...not border jumpers.
Thumbs down...obviously SOME people do not know the history of the 14th. Read up sometime!
To answer your question, the provision you speak of is not law. It's based on a Supreme Court decision that interpreted the 14th Amendment to The Constitution. To change that interpretation the Supreme Court would either need to overturn itself or The Constitution would need to be amended. A third possibility is that Congress could pass a law taking citizenship away from these children and include language in the law that forbids the courts from reviewing the law.
It would take away one of the biggest incentives for them to come here.
Yes. We are rewarding criminal behavior. Previous poster is correct. The 14th Amendment was for meant for former slaves. It's time to be updated!
Illegals can be deported even if they have a child here, and without separating families as we don't hold the kids hostage. But yes, we need to do away with this loophole law that was intended to give citizenship to former slaves and their children, not the children of illegal aliens. It is no longer needed and being abused.
The anchor baby clause was put in as part of the 14th amendment.
At the time, the country had to deal with the question: "What do we do about the children of newly freed slaves?"
There are no more slaves, nor are the children of slaves still alive. Therefore, we should have an honest debate about whether the 14th amendment is still necessary, or should be repealed.
But, I don't see 2/3 of Congress agreeing on anything right now, nor do I see 2/3 of the states in any mood to convene a Constitutional Convention.
Yes! Automatic citizenship is bad for our country and it is bad for many children who get it...how? Because some parents do not realize that it's best for their children to be with them in whatever country they can 'legally' live.
Yes that loop hole needs to be closed
Yes! But does it matter?
"The 14th amendment states that children born to aliens who are LAWFULLY inside the United States (resident or visitor), with the intention of amicably interacting with its people and obeying its laws."
So why does the child get citizenship when their parents aren't here legally? They aren't a visitor nor a legal resident. Therefore the anchor baby law doesn't apply to illegals.
I apologize for boding "lawfully" and if my post was difficult to comprehend.
The Immigration information post by website user , MyTend.com not guarantee correctness.
More Immigration Questions and Answers ...